Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Ray JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 429 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 10-40915
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Ray JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Ray JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40915
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 21, 2011.
James Mack Noble, IV, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Wesley Volberding, Esq., Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.