     Case: 11-20441     Document: 00511762299         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/17/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         February 17, 2012
                                     No. 11-20441
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIANO DIAZ, also known as Mariano Diaz Arellano, also known as Mariano
A. Diaz, also known as Mario Diaz,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:11-CR-130-1


Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mariano Diaz 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). Diaz has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Diaz’s response. To
the extent that Diaz challenges the conduct of counsel at sentencing, the record


       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-20441   Document: 00511762299      Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/17/2012

                                  No. 11-20441

is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of his claim; 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
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue
for appellate review. Accordingly, 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. Diaz’s request for appointment
of new counsel is DENIED.




                                        2
