
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Baltazar SANTACRUZ-NARANJO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40605
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 19, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Baltazar Santacruz-Naranjo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 886 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). Santacruz-Naranjo has filed a response and has moved to relieve appointed counsel and to appoint new counsel.

To the extent that Santacruz-Naranjo raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of his claims; 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 Santacruz-Naranjo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Santacruz-Naranjo’s motions to relieve counsel and appoint new counsel are DENIED. The FPD’s 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     