     Case: 12-40962       Document: 00512347170         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/20/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          August 20, 2013
                                     No. 12-40962
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFONSO RAMIREZ-OLVERA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:12-CR-80-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfonso Ramirez-
Olvera 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). Ramirez-Olvera has filed a response.                    The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ramirez-Olvera’s
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be
resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] ha[ve] not been raised before 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40962     Document: 00512347170     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/20/2013

                                  No. 12-40962

district court since 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 and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as
Ramirez-Olvera’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.
Ramirez-Olvera’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.




                                        2
