Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Lamont ALBERTY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-19
Citations: 513 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 12-40054
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Lamont ALBERTY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 411–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Lamont ALBERTY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40054
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 19, 2013.
Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Hunter Smith, Esq., Nall, Pelley, Wynne & Smith, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Eric Lamont Alberty 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). Alberty has filed a response and moved for the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Albert/s response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Albertos 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). 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. Al-berty's motion for appointment of new counsel is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.