Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Humberto ONTIVEROS, also known as Chaparro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 519 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 12-41101
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Humberto ONTIVEROS, also known as Chaparro, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Humberto ONTIVEROS, also known as Chaparro, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41101
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 2013.
• Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Seth Rretzer, Law Offices of Seth Kret-zer, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Humberto Ontiveros, Memphis, TN, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Humberto Ontiveros 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). Ontiveros has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ontiveros's claims 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 Ontiveros'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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.