
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lucio GARZA-IBARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40496
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 17, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Lucio Garza-Ibarra, Pecos, TX, pro se.
    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, 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). 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 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 GarzaIbarra’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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     