Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel RIOS-VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-19
Citations: 490 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 11-50460
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel RIOS-VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 638–638

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel RIOS-VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50460
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo Enrique Calderon, Esq., Law Offices of Ricardo E. Calderon, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Joel Rios-Villanueva, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Before SMITH, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Joel Rios-Villanueva 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). Rios-Villanueva has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel.
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Rios-Villanueva's response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which 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 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. The motion for the appointment of new 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.