     Case: 10-40915     Document: 00511514925          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/21/2011




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 21, 2011
                                     No. 10-40915
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAUL RAY JACKSON,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 6:09-CR-99-1


Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
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 (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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
   Case: 10-40915   Document: 00511514925     Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/21/2011

                                 No. 10-40915

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 5 TH C IR. 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)




                                       2
