Court Opinion

ID: 183556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-01-26 01:03:10+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:04.160238
License: Public Domain

Case: 10-10098 Document: 00511360559 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2011

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

                                                 FILED
                                                                          January 25, 2011
                                     No. 10-10098
                                   Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMMIE JOE HAMILTON,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:09-CR-234-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Tommie Joe
Hamilton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hamilton has filed a response
as well as a motion for leave to file a supplemental response. The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Hamilton’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
     Case: 10-10098 Document: 00511360559 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2011

                                No. 10-10098

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 Hamilton’s responses discloses no nonfrivolous issue for
appeal.   Accordingly, Hamilton’s motion to file a supplemental response is
GRANTED, the FPD’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.

                                      2