     Case: 12-50673       Document: 00512250861         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/22/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           May 22, 2013
                                     No. 12-50673
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JESUS ENRIQUE ROMERO TALAMANTES,

                                                  Defendant–Appellant.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:11-CR-947-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Enrique Romero Talamantes
(Romero) 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).          Romero has filed a response.             The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Romero’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50673    Document: 00512250861     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/22/2013

                                 No. 12-50673

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 omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant
portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Romero’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. Romero’s motion to proceed pro se, for
extension of time, and to strike counsel’s brief is DENIED.




                                       2
