
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Javier GUTIERREZ-MATAMOROS, also known as Mario Javier Gutierrez-Matamoros, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-41255
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 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, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Javier Gutierrez-Mata-moros 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). Gutierrez-Matamoros has filed a response. To the extent that Gutierrez-Matamoros challenges trial counsel’s effectiveness for failing to challenge the enhancements based on the age of his prior convictions, the issue can be addressed and presents no nonfrivolous issue. See Clark v. Collins, 19 F.3d 959, 966 (5th Cir.1994) (counsel does not render ineffective assistance by failing to make meritless objections). To the extent that Gutierrez-Ma-tamoros’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel go beyond that, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of his claims; such claims generally “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 Gutierrez-Matamoros’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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     