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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            April 30, 2009
                                     No. 08-20123
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID VELASCO, also known as Cuate

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:06-CR-181-6


Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent David Velasco has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Velasco has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed
to allow consideration at this time of Velasco’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 allegations.” United States v. Cantwell,

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-20123

470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Velasco’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
