Case: 12-20757       Document: 00512325493         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/30/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                            July 30, 2013
                                     No. 12-20757
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE AMAYA GERARDO, also known as Jorge Gerardo Amaya, also known
as Gerardo Jorge Amaya,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:12-CR-117-1


Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Amaya Gerardo
(Amaya) 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).           Amaya has filed a response.             The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Amaya’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on


       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-20757     Document: 00512325493      Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/30/2013

                                  No. 12-20757

direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since
no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”
United States v. Cantwell, 

, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). We have
reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein,
as well as Amaya’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.




                                        2