Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeremy Raye LINCOLN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-19
Citations: 422 F. App'x 378
Docket Number: No. 10-20481
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeremy Raye LINCOLN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeremy Raye LINCOLN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-20481
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 19, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeremy Raye Lincoln, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jeremy Raye Lincoln 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). Lincoln has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Lincoln'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 Lincoln'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 Cir. R. 42.2. Lincoln'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.