Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Antonio RUIZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-25
Citations: 467 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 10-40524
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Antonio RUIZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Antonio RUIZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40524
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 25, 2012.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Russell Jerome Jordan, Attorney, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Miguel Antonio Ruiz-Lopez, Talladega, AL, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.