Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel JUAREZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Miguel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 136 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 04-50243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel JUAREZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Miguel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel JUAREZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Miguel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50243.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 22, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Guillermo Jose Gonzalez, Buford & Jordon, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Court-appointed counsel for Miguel Juarez-Gonzalez (Juarez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Juarez has filed a response to the motion. Our review of the brief filed by counsel, Juarez's response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. We conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration on direct appeal of Juarez's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, without prejudice to Juarez's right to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Juarez's motions for the appointment of counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis are 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.