Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Corey Delmar SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-18
Citations: 311 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 08-10518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Corey Delmar SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 708–709

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Corey Delmar SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10518
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2009.
David Lee Jarvis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern Dis trict of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Susan B. Cowger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.