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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            April 30, 2009
                                     No. 08-10683
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HARVEY LEE MITCHELL, JR

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:08-CR-32-ALL


Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Harvey Lee Mitchell,
Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mitchell has filed a response. The
record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mitchell’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 opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-10683

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 Mitchell’s response discloses no nonfrivolous 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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.




                                         2
