Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Alfredo MEJIA-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-08
Citations: 403 F. App'x 911
Docket Number: No. 10-40284
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Alfredo MEJIA-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 911–912

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Alfredo MEJIA-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40284
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Oscar Alfredo Mejia-Alvarado, Eden, TX, pro se.
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Alfredo Mejia-Alvarado (Mejia) 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). Mejia has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mejia's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has 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 Mejia'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.