Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel UCLES, 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 404
Docket Number: No. 09-40787
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel UCLES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 404–404

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel UCLES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-40787
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Ucles 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). Ucles has filed a response. With respect to Ucles'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). With respect to Ucles's remaining claims, our independent review of the record, the response, and counsel's brief 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.