Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terral James TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-09
Citations: 403 F. App'x 962
Docket Number: No. 09-31194
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terral James TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 962–963

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terral James TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-31194
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2010.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, J. Collin Sims, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark David Plaisance, Baker, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Terral James 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 filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Taylor'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 Taylor's response 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.