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

                                                FILED
                                                                February 18, 2009
                                No. 08-10578
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES KENNETH OWENS

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 7:06-CR-12-ALL


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The attorney appointed to represent James Kenneth Owens has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967). Owens has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Owens’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



      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-10578

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
Owens’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