Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzolo GONZALES, Also Known as Gonzolo Gonzalez, Also Known as Pau Pau, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-12
Citations: 535 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 12-41386
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzolo GONZALES, Also Known as Gonzolo Gonzalez, Also Known as Pau Pau, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzolo GONZALES, Also Known as Gonzolo Gonzalez, Also Known as Pau Pau, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41386
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 12, 2013.
Grover Glenn Roque-Jackson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Law Office of Margaret Schmucker, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.