     Case: 10-50978     Document: 00511699148         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/19/2011




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 19, 2011
                                     No. 10-50978
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIPE SAUCEDO, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:08-CR-189-2


Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Felipe Saucedo, Jr., 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).
Saucedo has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Saucedo’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
implicating the voluntariness of his guilty plea; such a claim generally “cannot
be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50978   Document: 00511699148      Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/19/2011

                                  No. 10-50978

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
Saucedo’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.




                                        2
