Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesherrick TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-20
Citations: 333 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 09-50106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesherrick TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesherrick TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50106
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 20, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evers Jason Leach, Law Offices of E. Jason Leach, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jesherrick 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). Taylor has not filed a response. The rec ord is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Taylor's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his pro se notice of appeal; 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 and counsel's brief 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.