Case: 12-10619       Document: 00512301483         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/09/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                            July 9, 2013
                                     No. 12-10619
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

APOLONIO LONGINOS RUIZ, also known as Polo,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:11-CR-96-29


Before KING, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Apolonio Longinos Ruiz has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 

 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

 (5th
Cir. 2011). Longinos Ruiz has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Longinos 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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10619    Document: 00512301483    Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/09/2013

                                No. 12-10619

no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”
United States v. Cantwell, 

, 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 Longinos 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,
and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                      2