Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo GARZA-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-17
Citations: 471 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 11-10524
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo GARZA-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo GARZA-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10524
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2012.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura S. Harper, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfredo Garza-Sosa 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). Garza-Sosa has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Garza-Sosa's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] [have] 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 Garza-Sosa's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel's 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. Garza-Sosa'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.