Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hiluterio CHAVEZ, also known as Zeus, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 411 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 09-10879
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hiluterio CHAVEZ, also known as Zeus, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 744–744

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hiluterio CHAVEZ, also known as Zeus, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10879
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 2011.
Cody Lee Skipper, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffrey Todd Robnett, Esq., Attorney, Law Offices of Jeff Robnett, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Hiluterio Chavez, Lexington, KY, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Hiluterio Chavez 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). Chavez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Chavez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; 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). Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Chavez's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.