
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dameon JOHNICE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30185
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 8, 2010.
    Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Harvey Craft, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Dameon Johnice, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Dameon Johnice has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Johnice has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Johnice’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 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 Johnice’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 5th Cir..R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     