Court-appointed counsel for appellant Rigoberto Quintanilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Quintanilla has filed a response and a motion for appointment of new counsel.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Quintanilla’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Quintanilla’s contention that his previous counsel was ineffective for not advising him to withdraw his guilty plea is not sufficiently developed in the record before us. Therefore, as to that contention only, Quintanilla’s appeal is DISMISS ED without prejudice to his'ability to raise that contention in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).