Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-19
Citations: 288 F. App'x 986
Docket Number: No. 06-50691
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 288
Pages: 986–987

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50691
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 19, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jesse R. Coronado, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent De-fen dant-App ell ant Armando Ramirez-Martinez (Ramirez) 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). Ramirez has not filed a response. Although counsel suggests that Ramirez may have a nonfrivolous claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of that claim at this juncture. 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 and counsel's brief 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.