United States v. Ramiro Rodriguez, Jr.

Case: 13-50198 Document: 00512597174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-50198 FILED Summary Calendar April 15, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-237-4 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ramiro Rodriguez, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (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 claims ordinarily * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50198 Document: 00512597174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2014 No. 13-50198 “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] 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, 470 F.3d 1087, 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 Rodriguez’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. Rodriguez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 2