Case: 13-40496      Document: 00512474195         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/17/2013




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                                    No. 13-40496
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                        December 17, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUCIO GARZA-IBARRA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:12-CR-1042-1


Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lucio Garza-Ibarra
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). Garza-Ibarra has filed a response in which he moves for
the appointment of new counsel. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Garza-Ibarra’s claim of ineffective assistance of


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-40496    Document: 00512474195     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/17/2013


                                 No. 13-40496

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 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 Garza-Ibarra’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. Garza-Ibarra’s motion for the appointment
of new counsel is DENIED.




                                       2