Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter Tam TRAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-12
Citations: 366 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 09-10544
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter Tam TRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter Tam TRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10544
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2010.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn Marie Smith, The Smith Law Firm P.C., Newark, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Peter Tam Tran 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). Tran has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Tran's claims 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 Tran's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.