Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Angel MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-29
Citations: 553 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 13-50543
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Angel MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 420–420

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Angel MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50543
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shane John Stolarczyk, Esq., Keller Sto-larczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Juan Angel Martinez-Gonzalez, Philips-burg, PA, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Juan Angel Martinez-Gonzalez (Martinez) 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). Martinez has filed a response. To the extent that Martinez's response reflects that he wishes to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Martinez's claims; such claims generally are not resolved on direct appeal when they have not been developed in the district court. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Martinez'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.