     Case: 12-10192     Document: 00512024970         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/18/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         October 18, 2012
                                     No. 12-10192
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LIONEL ALEXANDER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:10-CR-306-1


Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lionel Alexander 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).     Alexander has filed a response.            The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Alexander’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10192   Document: 00512024970     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/18/2012

                                 No. 12-10192

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 Alexander’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
