Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David VELASCO, also known as Cuate, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-30
Citations: 323 F. App'x 380
Docket Number: No. 08-20123
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David VELASCO, also known as Cuate, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 380–380

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David VELASCO, also known as Cuate, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-20123
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth. Circuit.
April 30, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joe A. Salinas, III, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent David Velasco 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). Velasco has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Velasco's claim 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 i'ecord 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 Velasco's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.