Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose HERNANDEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-06
Citations: 511 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 12-10555
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose HERNANDEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose HERNANDEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10555
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 6, 2013.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Camille M. Knight Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Hernandez-Canales 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). Hernandez-Canales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of Hernandez-Canales's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they 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, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Hernandez-Canales'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, Hernandez-Canales's motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.