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

                                                FILED
                                                                December 23, 2009
                                No. 08-50103
                              Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LARRY WAYNE NORWOOD,

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:06-CR-979-3


Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The attorney appointed to represent Larry Wayne Norwood has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Norwood has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Norwood’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



      *
      Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
                                 No. 08-50103

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
Norwood’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.




                                       2
