Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Donnell PRICE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-07
Citations: 320 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 08-10751
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Donnell PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Donnell PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10751
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 7, 2009.
Aaron Wiley, Dallas, TX, Frederick M. Schattman, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Allen Curtis, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricky Donnell Price 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). Price has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Price'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 Price's response discloses no nonfrivo-lous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.