Case: 13-40226       Document: 00512473864         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/17/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 17, 2013
                                     No. 13-40226
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDUVAR ROJAS-MURGA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:12-CR-896-1


Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduvar Rojas-Murga
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). Rojas-Murga has filed a response and has moved for substitution of
counsel or leave to proceed pro se. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Rojas-Murga’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40226    Document: 00512473864     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/17/2013

                                 No. 13-40226

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) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of
the record reflected therein, as well as Rojas-Murga’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. Rojas-Murga’s motion for substitution of counsel or leave
to proceed pro se is DENIED.




                                       2