Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edward Glen PONTING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-27
Citations: 504 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 12-50264
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edward Glen PONTING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 341–341

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edward Glen PONTING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50264
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 27, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffrey David Parker, Esq., Jeff Parker Law Firm, Belton, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Edward Glen Ponting 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). Ponting has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ponting's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim 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 Ponting'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 Cíe. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.