Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GONZALEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-23
Citations: 278 F. App'x 464
Docket Number: No. 06-51619
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GONZALEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 464–464

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GONZALEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51619
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 23, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason M. Davis, Law Offices of Jason Davis, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gonzalez-Vargas (Gonzalez) 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). Gonzalez has filed a response wherein he suggests that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Gonzalez did not raise this claim in the district court, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit consideration of this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Gonzalez also suggests that his appellate counsel has been ineffective for failing to raise certain sentencing arguments on appeal. Gonzalez's argument is without merit, however, because the claims are barred by the appeal waiver provision of the plea agreement. Counsel is not required to raise meritless arguments on appeal. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir.1990). Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Gonzalez'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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.