
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jarvis Dupree ROSS, also known as Dookie, also known as Dapree Dollars, also known as Fifty; Corey Deyon Duffey, also known as Keyno, also known as Calvin Brown; Charles Runnels, also known as Junior; Antonyo Reece, also known as Seven; Tony R. Hewitt, also known as Priceless T, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 12-11021
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 7, 2013.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kimberly Candace Priest-Johnson, Dallas, TX, Seth Kretzer, Law Offices of Seth Kretzer, Houston, TX, Gregory L. Ahl-gren, Esq., San Antonio, TX, James Patrick Whalen, Plano, TX, Shane John Sto-larczyk, Esq., Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Corey Deyon Duffey 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). Duffey has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Duffey’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims 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 Duffey’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     