Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald Joseph BARNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-15
Citations: 357 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 08-31172
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald Joseph BARNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald Joseph BARNE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-31172
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2009.
Tracey Nicole Knight, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Virginia Laughlin Schlueter, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Donald Joseph Barne 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). Barne has not filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of any potential claim of ineffective assistance of counsel identified by counsel; such a claim generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [it] 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). Our independent review of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.