Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wade Phillip SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 446 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 10-10495
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wade Phillip SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wade Phillip SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10495
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2011.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Lamar Coyle, Esq., Paris, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Wade Phillip Smith, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Wade Phillip Smith 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). Smith has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Smith'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 Smith'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.