Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Romel Antonio ROMERO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 430 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 10-40841
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Romel Antonio ROMERO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 290–290

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Romel Antonio ROMERO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40841
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 21, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.