Case: 11-20836       Document: 00512346679         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. 11-20836
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO TOVAR,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:10-CR-106-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Tovar has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 

 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

 (5th Cir. 2011). Tovar
has filed a response.          The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Tovar’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;
such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not
been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-20836    Document: 00512346679     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/20/2013

                                 No. 11-20836

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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Tovar’s response. The Government did not breach
the plea agreement. 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. Tovar’s motion
for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.




                                       2