Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 328 F. App'x 979
Docket Number: No. 08-40929
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 979–979

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-40929
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 27, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fernando Rodriguez 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). Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Rodriguez'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 Rodriguez'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.