     Case: 09-51050     Document: 00511205878          Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/17/2010




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                           August 17, 2010
                                     No. 09-51050
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LORENZO MORALES,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:09-CR-101-4


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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-51050    Document: 00511205878 Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/17/2010
                                No. 09-51050

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
Morales’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.
Morales’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.




                                      2
