Case: 12-40580       Document: 00512347108         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. 12-40580
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACQUELINE L. VELASQUEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:10-CR-899-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Jacqueline L. Velasquez 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).     Velasquez has filed a response.            The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Velasquez’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40580    Document: 00512347108     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/20/2013

                                 No. 12-40580

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 Velasquez’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. Velasquez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is
DENIED.




                                       2