Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Javier ORONOZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-18
Citations: 331 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 08-50856
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Javier ORONOZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Javier ORONOZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50856.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Leo Williams, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.