Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0397-02.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. Cecilio Luviano CARDENAS, also known as Alfredo Luviano Mendoza, also known as Felipe DeJesus Arias Toribia, also known as Reyne, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-41283
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2013.
    Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Seth Kretzer; Law Offices of Seth Kret-zer, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Cecilio Luviano Cardenas, USP Lompoc, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Cecilio Luviano Cardenas 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). Luviano Cardenas has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Luviano Cardenas’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 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 Luviano Cardenas’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.