United States v. Jack Zimmerman

Case: 11-10266 Document: 00511761513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 17, 2012 No. 11-10266 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JACK ZIMMERMAN, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-27-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jack Zimmerman 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). Zimmerman has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Zimmerman’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 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10266 Document: 00511761513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2012 No. 11-10266 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 Zimmerman’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. Zimmerman’s motion for appointment of new counsel or to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 2