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

                                                                  FILED
                                                                August 20, 2008
                                No. 07-10888
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LYNN SMIRL

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:07-CR-3-16


Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The attorney appointed to represent Lynn Smirl has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Smirl has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to
allow consideration at this time of Smirl’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



      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-10888

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 Smirl’s
response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, his motion for the appointment of
substitute counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
