Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fredrick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-01
Citations: 471 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: Nos. 11-10252, 11-10278
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fredrick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fredrick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 11-10252, 11-10278
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 1, 2012.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Fredrick Odhiambo Opiyo, Bastrop, TX, pro se.
Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Reynolds Biggs, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DENNIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Fredrick Odhiambo Opiyo 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). Opiyo has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Opiyo's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; such claims generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] 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 Opiyo'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.