Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenzie NELSON, also known as Swavey, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 489 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 12-10159
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenzie NELSON, also known as Swavey, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 798–798

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenzie NELSON, also known as Swavey, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10159
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 2012.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Anthony Morris, Esq., Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kenzie Nelson, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kenzie Nelson 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). Nelson has filed a response. To the extent that Nelson raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of his claims at this time; such claims 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 Nelson'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.