Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Arzola RAMIREZ, 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 407
Docket Number: No. 07-10225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Arzola RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 407–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Arzola RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10225
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2008.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joe Arzola 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 filed a response and has also moved for appointment of substitute counsel and for an extension of time to file his response.
The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ramirez'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 Ramirez's response discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, all of Ramirez's pro se motions are DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.