Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus RODRIGUEZ-ARMANDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-20
Citations: 539 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 12-41413
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus RODRIGUEZ-ARMANDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus RODRIGUEZ-ARMANDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41413.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant>-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.