     Case: 11-40827     Document: 00511803529         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/28/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          March 28, 2012
                                     No. 11-40827
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STENNETH ALPHANSO BARNETT,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:11-CR-677-1


Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circiut Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stenneth Alphanso
Barnett 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). Barnett has filed a response and a pro se motion for the
appointment of counsel.          The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Barnett’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40827   Document: 00511803529     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/28/2012

                                 No. 11-40827

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 Barnett’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that
the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, Barnett’s pro se motion for
the appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
