Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe Horacio LOPEZ-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-10
Citations: 302 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 07-40715
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe Horacio LOPEZ-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe Horacio LOPEZ-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40715
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Luis Antonio Figueroa, Law Office of Luis Antonio Figueroa, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.