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

                                                FILED
                                                                 July 22, 2009
                                No. 08-11114
                              Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISAAC JONES, JR.,

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 5:08-CR-29-ALL




Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The federal public defendant appointed to represent Isaac Jones, Jr., has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 

(1967). Jones has filed a response. The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Jones’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on



      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-11114

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, 

, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record,
counsel’s brief, and Jones’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