Court Opinion

ID: 1037556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-14 05:12:02.820951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:59.566653
License: Public Domain

Case: 12-10253       Document: 00512339448           Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/13/2013

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                              FILED
                                                                           August 13, 2013
                                     No. 12-10253
                                   Summary Calendar                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GEORGE VASQUEZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:11-CR-96-32

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent George Vasquez has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Vasquez has requested new appointed counsel due to unspecified ineffective
assistance. Insofar as Vasquez wishes to raise a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of it at

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    Case: 12-10253    Document: 00512339448     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/13/2013

                                 No. 12-10253

this time; 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 brief and the relevant portions
of the record reflected therein as well as Vasquez’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. Accordingly, Vasquez’s motion to relieve appointed counsel
and to appoint new counsel is DENIED, 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.

                                       2