Case: 11-11153       Document: 00512134242         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/04/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         February 4, 2013
                                     No. 11-11153
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL YEPEZ-AGUIRRE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:11-CR-34-1


Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Yepez-Aguirre
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). Yepez-Aguirre has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Yepez-Aguirre’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-11153    Document: 00512134242     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/04/2013

                                 No. 11-11153

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 Yepez-Aguirre’s
response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.




                                       2