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

                                                                   FILED
                                                                December 10, 2008
                                No. 07-40653
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT WILLIAM AYERS, III

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 2:07-CR-57-3


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



      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-40653

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 Ayers’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 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Ayers’s motion
for the appointment of new counsel and his motion to vacate the district court’s
judgment and remand the case are DENIED.




                                       2
