     Case: 10-10259 Document: 00511450270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            April 19, 2011
                                     No. 10-10259
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR VIDALES-MORALES,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:09-CR-87-1


Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Vidales-
Morales (Vidales) 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). Vidales has filed a response. The record
is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Vidales’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-10259 Document: 00511450270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011

                                 No. 10-10259

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
Vidales’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
