Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert William AYERS, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-10
Citations: 307 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 07-40653
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert William AYERS, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 781–781

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert William AYERS, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40653
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Edward F. Garza, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Robert William Ayers, III, 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). Ayers has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ayers's claim 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 Ayers's response 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. Ayers's motion for the appointment of new counsel and his motion to vacate the district court's judgment and remand the case are 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.