     Case: 11-51070       Document: 00512199125         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/05/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                            April 5, 2013
                                     No. 11-51070
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEE EDWARD ADCOCK, also known as Lee Adcock,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:11-CR-52-1


Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Lee Edward Adcock has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Adcock has filed responses. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Adcock’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-51070    Document: 00512199125     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/05/2013

                                 No. 11-51070

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). We
have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein, as well as Adcock’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment
that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.
Adcock’s motions to strike the Anders briefs are DENIED.




                                       2
