Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Malone BURNS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-07
Citations: 551 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 13-40056
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Malone BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Malone BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40056
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 7, 2014.
Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Alan Reeve Jackson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Gerard Arrambide, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Defender, Frisco, TX, Amy R. Blalock, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Malone Burns 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). Burns has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Burns's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has 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 Burns's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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. Burns's motion to file a motion for reconsideration out of time is GRANTED but his motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel are 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.