Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fortunato MENDOZA-DE LOS SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-19
Citations: 454 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 11-40110
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fortunato MENDOZA-DE LOS SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fortunato MENDOZA-DE LOS SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40110
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 19, 2011.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Cano, Law Office of David Cano, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Fortunato Mendoza-De Los Santos (Mendoza) 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). Mendoza has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mendoza'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 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendoza'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, Mendoza's motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.