Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo HUERTA-MIRELES, true name Rodolfo Mireles Huerta, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 529 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 12-41380
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo HUERTA-MIRELES, true name Rodolfo Mireles Huerta, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo HUERTA-MIRELES, true name Rodolfo Mireles Huerta, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41380
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 18, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Rodolfo Huerta-Mireles, True Name Rodolfo Míreles Huerta, Houston, TX, pro se.
Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodolfo Huerta-Mireles (Mí-reles) 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). Mí-reles has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mireles'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 Mireles'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.