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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 24, 2009
                                     No. 08-11004
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OLBIN YOVANY ARANDA-HERNANDEZ

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:08-CR-31-2


Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Olbin Yovany Aranda-Hernandez
(Aranda) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Aranda has filed a response.
The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of
Aranda’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                                  No. 08-11004

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 Aranda’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. Aranda’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is
DENIED.




                                        2
