Case: 11-40110     Document: 00511699415         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/19/2011




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 19, 2011
                                     No. 11-40110
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FORTUNATO MENDOZA-DE LOS SANTOS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:10-CR-847-1


Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Fortunato Mendoza-De Los Santos
(Mendoza) 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).          Mendoza has filed a response.            The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mendoza’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40110    Document: 00511699415     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/19/2011

                                 No. 11-40110

since 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
Mendoza’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, Mendoza’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL
IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2