Case: 12-41385       Document: 00512327348         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/31/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                            July 31, 2013
                                     No. 12-41385
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GONZALO GONZALES, also known as Paupau,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:11-CR-145-1


Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Gonzalo Gonzales 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).
Gonzales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Gonzales’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 to develop

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-41385     Document: 00512327348     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/31/2013

                                  No. 12-41385

the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 

, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
as Gonzales’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