     Case: 12-50540       Document: 00512210730         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/16/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           April 16, 2013
                                     No. 12-50540
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

APRIL LEE MITCHELL, also known as Blacc,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:11-CR-332-1


Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent April Lee Mitchell 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).
Mitchell has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Mitchell’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;
such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not
been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50540    Document: 00512210730     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/16/2013

                                 No. 12-50540

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 Mitchell’s response. 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. Mitchell’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.




                                       2
