     Case: 12-41413       Document: 00512347353         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. 12-41413
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS RODRIGUEZ-ARMANDO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:12-CR-263-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Rodriguez-
Armando 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). Rodriguez-Armando has filed a response. The record
is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Rodriguez-
Armando’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-41413     Document: 00512347353      Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/20/2013

                                  No. 12-41413

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 Rodriguez-Armando’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
