     Case: 10-40841     Document: 00511515311          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/21/2011




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 21, 2011
                                     No. 10-40841
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROMEL ANTONIO ROMERO-HERNANDEZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:10-CR-469-1


Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Romel Antonio
Romero-Hernandez 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-Hernandez has filed a response.
The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of
Romero-Hernandez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim
generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-40841    Document: 00511515311      Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/21/2011

                                  No. 10-40841

raised before the 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 Romero-Hernandez’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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.




                                        2
