United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  October 25, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-31082
                         Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK A. WRIGHT,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
              for the Western District of Louisiana
                    USDC No. 3:05-CR-30013-1
                       --------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The attorney appointed to represent Patrick A. Wright has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 

(1967).     Wright filed a

response in which he alleges that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel.   The record is not sufficiently developed

to allow us to fairly evaluate the merits of this issue.

Therefore, it is not reviewable on direct appeal.      See United

States v. Higdon, 

, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).



     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-31082
                                -2-

     Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Wright’s

response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal.   Accordingly, counsel’s 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.