Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Naun NAVARRO-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-17
Citations: 391 F. App'x 379
Docket Number: No. 09-40798
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Naun NAVARRO-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 379–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Naun NAVARRO-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-40798
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.