Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Agapito Arturo MARTINEZ-MORENO, also known as Arturo Agapito Martinez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-07
Citations: 452 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 10-20618
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Agapito Arturo MARTINEZ-MORENO, also known as Arturo Agapito Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 571–571

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Agapito Arturo MARTINEZ-MORENO, also known as Arturo Agapito Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-20618
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 7, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arturo Agapito Martinez, Conroe, TX, pro se.
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.