Court Opinion

ID: 67937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 06:27:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.141299
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                           August 18, 2009
                                     No. 08-50856
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR JAVIER ORONOZ-RODRIGUEZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:08-CR-642-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Oscar Javier Oronoz-Rodriguez
(Oronoz) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Oronoz has filed a response. The
record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Oronoz’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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                                  No. 08-50856

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 Oronoz’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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.

                                        2