Case: 09-30889     Document: 00511148938          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/22/2010




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 22, 2010
                                     No. 09-30889
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAMIONE BROCK, also known as Pete Rock,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 5:99-CR-50101-4


Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Damione Brock has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 

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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-30889     Document: 00511148938 Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/22/2010
                                  No. 09-30889

United States v. Cantwell, 

, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record,
counsel’s brief, and Brock’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue 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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.




                                        2