
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ovsanna AGOPIAN, also known as Joanna Ovsanna Agopian, also known as Joanna Smbatyan, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10792
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2014.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Seth Kretzer, Law Offices of Seth Kret-zer, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Ov-sanna Agopian has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Agopian has filed a response. She also moves this court for the appointment of new counsel on appeal and moves to strike the Anders brief filed in this case.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Agopi-an’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 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 Agopian’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. Agopian’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal and her motion to strike counsel’s Anders brief are also DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under tire limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     