Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damione BROCK, also known as Pete Rock, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-22
Citations: 383 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 09-30889
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damione BROCK, also known as Pete Rock, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damione BROCK, also known as Pete Rock, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30889
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2010.
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Allison Duncan Bushnell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.