Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy NABOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-19
Citations: 373 F. App'x 483
Docket Number: No. 09-31069
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy NABOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 483–483

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy NABOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-31069
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 19, 2010.
Richard Lewis Bourgeois, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tommy Nabor, Jr., Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tommy Nabor, Jr., 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). Nabor has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Nabor'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." United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Nabor'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 5th CiR. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.