Court Opinion

ID: 60728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 04:03:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:56.167248
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                  FILED
                                                                  April 16, 2008
                                No. 07-10826
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMUEL NORRIS

                                            Defendant-Appellant

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 5:07-CR-13-ALL

Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The attorney appointed to represent Samuel Norris has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Norris has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Norris’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal
when [it has] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
                                  No. 07-10826

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” See 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
Norris’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.       Accordingly,
Norris’s pro se motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, 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.

                                        2