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

                                                 FILED
                                                                        September 14, 2009
                                     No. 08-50695
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENYA DIONNE SNEED, also known as Kenya Dionne Coker,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:08-CR-23-ALL


Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Kenya Dionne Sneed has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sneed has filed a response, arguing, in part, that she
received ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting permission to proceed
pro se. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time
of Sneed’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally
“cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-50695

district court since no 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 Sneed’s
response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the 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. Sneed’s request
to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d
901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).




                                        2
