     Case: 10-40524     Document: 00511834821         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/25/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           April 25, 2012
                                     No. 10-40524
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANTONIO RUIZ-LOPEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:09-CR-1355-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Antonio Ruiz-Lopez (Ruiz) 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). Ruiz has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to
allow consideration at this time of Ruiz’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-40524   Document: 00511834821      Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/25/2012

                                  No. 10-40524

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 Ruiz’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, Ruiz’s pro se motion for the appointment of
counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                        2
