Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory D. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-17
Citations: 391 F. App'x 367
Docket Number: No. 05-40774
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory D. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 367–367

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory D. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40774
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 2010.
Richard Lee Moore, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas Henry Johnson, Texarkana, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gregory D. Lewis 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). Lewis has filed a response. To the extent that Lewis has raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of his claim; 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 Lewis'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. Lewis's motion to substitute 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.