Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eliseo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-18
Citations: 293 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 07-40711
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eliseo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eliseo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40711
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
J. Alberto Alarcon, Hall, Quintanilla & Alarcon, Laredo, TX, for DefendanL-Ap-pellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Eliseo Garcia 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). Garcia has filed a response.
The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration, at this time, of Garcia'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 Garcia'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. Garcia's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.