Case ID: f-appx_548/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene OLIVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40057
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 29, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rene Olivarez, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Rene Olivarez 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). Olivarez has filed a reply to counsel’s Anders motion and has moved to strike counsel’s Anders brief, proceed pro se on appeal, and file a pro se brief.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Olivarez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; 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 Olivarez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED; Olivarez’s motion to strike counsel’s brief, proceed pro se, and file a pro se brief is DENIED; 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.