Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommie Joe HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10098
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 25, 2011.
    Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Brandon Nelson McCarthy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 3:09-CR-234-l.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Tommie Joe Hamilton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hamilton has filed a response as well as a motion for leave to file a supplemental response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Hamilton’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Hamilton’s responses discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, Hamilton’s motion to file a supplemental response is GRANTED, the FPD’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.