Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joana Martha ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 10-10870
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joana Martha ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joana Martha ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10870
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 5, 2011.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark R. Danielson, Mansfield, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Joana Martha Rosales 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). Rosales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Rosales'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 Rosales'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.