Court Opinion

ID: 71128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 07:13:39+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:30.917741
License: Public Domain

Case: 09-20116     Document: 00511027435          Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/12/2010

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

                                                  FILED
                                                                          February 12, 2010
                                     No. 09-20116
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MAXIMIANO SANTIAGO-CRUZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:08-CR-452-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Maximiano Santiago-Cruz has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Santiago-Cruz has filed a response. The record
is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Santiago-Cruz’s
claim 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
  Case: 09-20116    Document: 00511027435 Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/12/2010
                                No. 09-20116

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 Santiago-Cruz’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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Santiago-Cruz’s motion to proceed pro se is
DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

                                      2