Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo LOPEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-21
Citations: 509 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 11-20699
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo LOPEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 509
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo LOPEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-20699
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edward Cantu, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eduardo Lopez-Vargas, Raymondville, TX, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Eduardo Lopez-Vargas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental 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). Lopez-Vargas has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Lopez-Vargas'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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lopez-Vargas'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, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.