Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Quittman Andre GOODLEY, also known as Q-Good, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-19
Citations: 547 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: No. 12-50762
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Quittman Andre GOODLEY, also known as Q-Good, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Quittman Andre GOODLEY, also known as Q-Good, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50762
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 2013.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Quittman Andre Goodley, El Paso, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Quittman Andre Goodley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Goodley has filed responses and has moved for appointment of new counsel.
We have reviewed counsel's briefs and the relevant portions of the record re- fleeted therein, as well as Goodley's responses. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Goodley'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).
Further, we concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. 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. The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.