     Case: 12-20318       Document: 00512207066         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/12/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           April 12, 2013
                                     No. 12-20318
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NORBERTO ROBLES,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:08-CR-374-1


Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Norberto Robles 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).
Robles has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Robles’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-20318    Document: 00512207066     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/12/2013

                                 No. 12-20318

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 Robles’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
