
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cedrick SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30962
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 18, 2010.
    
      James Stanley Lemelle, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Cedrick Scott, Jonesville, VA, pro se.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cedrick Scott 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). Scott filed a motion for termination of counsel and for an extension of time to file appellate brief. He subsequently filed a pro se brief.

Scott has not shown “that there is a conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances or that the interests of justice otherwise require relief of counsel.” Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act, § 5(B); see also 18 U.S.C. 3006A(c). As Scott has not unequivocally requested to proceed pro se, his motion is insufficient to justify relieving appointed counsel and allowing him to proceed pro se. See Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 610 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc). Accordingly, Scott’s motion for termination of counsel is DENIED. Because Scott has now filed a pro se brief, his motion for extension of time to file appellate brief is DENIED as moot. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, we have construed Scott’s pro se brief as a response to his counsel’s Anders motion and considered the issues raised therein.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Scott’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     