Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto RUEDA, 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 357
Docket Number: No. 09-40884
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto RUEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto RUEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-40884
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 2010.
David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank Warren Henderson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.