Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Leroy FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 411 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 10-20277
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Leroy FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Leroy FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-20277
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.