     Case: 12-50264       Document: 00512095738         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/27/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 27, 2012
                                     No. 12-50264
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD GLEN PONTING,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:10-CR-217-1


Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Edward Glen Ponting has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Ponting has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Ponting’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50264    Document: 00512095738     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/27/2012

                                 No. 12-50264

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 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein, as well as Ponting’s response. 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.




                                       2
