Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Enrique MEJIA-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-26
Citations: 558 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 13-40889
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Enrique MEJIA-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Enrique MEJIA-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40889
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 26, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Carlos Enrique Mejia-Mejia, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.