Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudy CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-26
Citations: 464 F. App'x 419
Docket Number: No. 11-30254
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudy CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudy CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30254
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 26, 2012.
Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sean Matthew Toomey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
George Frazier, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Rudy Cabrera 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). Cabrera has filed a response.
The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Cabrera's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; such a claim generally "can not 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 Cabrera's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel's 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. Cabrera's motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.