     Case: 11-10949       Document: 00512146212         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/19/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         February 19, 2013
                                     No. 11-10949
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANE MEDLOCK,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:10-CR-206-9


Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Dane Medlock 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). Medlock
has filed a response.          The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Medlock’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10949    Document: 00512146212     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/19/2013

                                 No. 11-10949

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 Medlock’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
