Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0388-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zelbony O. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30762
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2012.
    Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Corey Ross Amundson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark David Plaisance, Esq., Baker, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Zelbony O. Taylor 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). Taylor has filed a response. To the extent that Taylor raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of those claims; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] [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). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Taylor’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.