     Case: 12-40807      Document: 00512567946         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/20/2014




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

                                                                                     FILED
                                    No. 12-40807                               March 20, 2014
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CEDRIC EARL OLIVER, also known as Fella,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:10-CR-16


Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Cedric Earl Oliver 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).
Oliver has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Oliver’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;
such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 12-40807    Document: 00512567946     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/20/2014


                                 No. 12-40807

not been raised before the 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). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Oliver’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, Oliver’s motion to
relieve counsel and proceed pro se is DENIED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
