Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Hector CARRILLO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-16
Citations: 274 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 07-40175
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Hector CARRILLO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Hector CARRILLO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40175
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Fernando A. Sanchez, Jr., Law Offices of Fernando A. Sanchez, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Hector Carrillo-Garcia (Carrillo) 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). Carrillo has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Carrillo'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." See 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 Carrillo'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.