United States v. Ramon Rodarte-Mendoza

Case: 10-10896 Document: 00511681844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 1, 2011
No. 10-10896
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAMON RODARTE-MENDOZA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-6-2
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Ramon Rodarte-Mendoza has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th
Cir. 2011). Rodarte-Mendoza has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration at this time of Rodarte-Mendoza’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on
direct appeal when the claim[s] [have] not been raised before the district court
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 10-10896 Document: 00511681844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2011
No. 10-10896
since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the
allegations.” United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 821 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087,
1091 (5th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions
of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodarte-Mendoza’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. Rodarte-Mendoza’s request for
the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Cf. United States v. Wagner, 158
F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
2