
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfonso RAMIREZ-OLVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40962
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Alfonso Ramirez-Olvera, USP Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfonso Ramirez-Olvera 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). Ramirez-Olvera has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ramirez-Olvera’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] ha[ve] 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 Ramirez-Olvera’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. Ramirez-Olvera’s motion for appointment of 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     