Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramon Felix VIZCARRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 473 F. App'x 373
Docket Number: No. 11-50586
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramon Felix VIZCARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramon Felix VIZCARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50586
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Allen Antcliff, Esq., El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Ramon Felix Vizcarra, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Ramon Felix Vizcarra (Felix) 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). Felix has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Felix'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. Cant-well, 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 Felix's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.'47.5.4.