Court Opinion

ID: 8673533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:56:45.329872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:22.830585
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Gonzalo Gonzales 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). Gonzales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Gonzales’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) (quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzales’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 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.