Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert C. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-17
Citations: 532 F. App'x 526
Docket Number: No. 11-31216
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert C. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 532
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert C. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-31216
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2013.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Myers P. Namie, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Robert C. Green, USP Lewisburg, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Robert C. Green has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Green has filed a response.
In his response, Green alleges that his request for a new counsel should have been granted and that his attorney failed to make "simple but very, very important objection[s]." To the extent that this allegation is an effort to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of such a claim. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Green'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.