Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco CAMACHO-BARAJAS, also known as Alfonso Alvarez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 235 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 06-41072
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco CAMACHO-BARAJAS, also known as Alfonso Alvarez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 347–347

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco CAMACHO-BARAJAS, also known as Alfonso Alvarez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41072
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Camacho-Barajas 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). Camacho-Barajas has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Camacho-Barajas's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Camacho-Barajas'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 Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.