Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edas Alcides BARAHONA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 417 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 10-50130
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edas Alcides BARAHONA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edas Alcides BARAHONA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50130
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 2011.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Graham Baker, Law Office of Graham Baker, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.