Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tanya Montana JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-22
Citations: 383 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 09-10678
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tanya Montana JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tanya Montana JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10678
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2010.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Catherine R. Dunnavant, Dunnavant & Associates, P.L.L.C., Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Tanya Montana Jones 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). Jones has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Jones's claim(s) of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claim(s) 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 Jones'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. Jones's untimely request for appointment of new counsel on appeal is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.