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

                                                                 FILED
                                                                April 16, 2008
                                No. 07-10225
                             Conference Calendar            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOE ARZOLA RAMIREZ

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 6:06-CR-25-1


Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
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 (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.




      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-10225

      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 nonfrivolous 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.




                                        2
