Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Herschel Wayne CARUTHERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-28
Citations: 479 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 12-40225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Herschel Wayne CARUTHERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Herschel Wayne CARUTHERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40225
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Herschel Wayne Caruthers 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), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Ca-ruthers has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Caruthers's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has 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). We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Caruthers's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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. Caruthers's motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.