Case: 10-41329     Document: 00511640770         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/21/2011




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         October 21, 2011
                                     No. 10-41329
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO CHAVEZ RODRIGUEZ, JR., also known as Pedro Rodriguez,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:04-CR-560-1


Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Chavez Rodriguez, Jr., 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).     Rodriguez has filed a response.            The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Rodriguez’s claims 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-41329   Document: 00511640770     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/21/2011

                                 No. 10-41329

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 briefs and the relevant portions
of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez’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, Rodriguez’s
motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2