Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Chavez RODRIGUEZ, Jr., also known as Pedro Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 446 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 10-41329
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Chavez RODRIGUEZ, Jr., also known as Pedro Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Chavez RODRIGUEZ, Jr., also known as Pedro Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-41329
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2011.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hector Del Toro, I, Esq., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Chavez Rodriguez, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Rodriguez's claims 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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez'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, Rodriguez's motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.