Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ, also known as Joel Albert Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-16
Citations: 428 F. App'x 473
Docket Number: No. 10-40709
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ, also known as Joel Albert Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ, also known as Joel Albert Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40709
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2011.
Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, Miriam Elena Rea, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Gerard Arrambide, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Defender, Frisco, TX, Amy R. Blalock, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo Espinoza-Gonzalez 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). Espinoza-Gonzalez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Espinoza-Gonzalez'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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Espinoza-Gonzalez'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.