Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto AVILA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 564 F. App'x 63
Docket Number: No. 13-50803
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 564
Pages: 63–64

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50803
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Rogelio Martin Munoz, Munoz Law Firm, Uvalde, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.