Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge DE LA PAZ-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 543 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 12-10681
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge DE LA PAZ-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge DE LA PAZ-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10681
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2013.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lydia M. Brandt, Esq., Brandt Law Firm, P.C., Richardson, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jorge De La Paz-Villegas 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). De La Paz-Ville-gas has filed a response. De La Paz-Villegas's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely notice of appeal has already been resolved as De La Paz-Villegas was allowed to file an out of time appeal. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of De La Paz-Villegas's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim [s] ha[ve] 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 De La Paz-Villegas'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.