Case: 12-51034       Document: 00512359015         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/30/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          August 30, 2013
                                     No. 12-51034
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TIMOTHY BYRON MURPHY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:11-CR-113-2


Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Timothy Byron Murphy 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). Murphy has filed responses. The record is insufficiently developed
to allow consideration at this time of Murphy’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-51034    Document: 00512359015     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/30/2013

                                 No. 12-51034

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 Murphy’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. Murphy’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is
DENIED.




                                       2