Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elias GOMEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-24
Citations: 431 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 10-40968
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elias GOMEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elias GOMEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40968
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 24, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elias Gomez-Guzman 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). Gomez-Guzman has filed a response. To the extent Gomez-Guzman asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of that claim at this time; 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 Gomez-Guzman'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.