UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Lamont ALBERTY, Defendant-Appellant, 513 F. App'x 411

PER CURIAM: The attorney appointed to represent Eric Lamont Alberty 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), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Alberty has filed a response and moved for the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Albert/s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Albertos 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). 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.

Al-berty’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.