Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tony GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-20
Citations: 429 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 10-41018
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tony GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 401–402

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tony GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-41018
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 2011.
Terri Lynn Hagan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. At torney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Wesley Volberding, Esq., Tyler, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Tony 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). Gonzalez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of 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 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.