The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gonzalez-Vargas (Gonzalez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gonzalez has filed a response wherein he suggests that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Gonzalez did not raise this claim in the district court, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit consideration of this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Gonzalez also suggests that his appellate counsel has been ineffective for failing to raise certain sentencing arguments on appeal. Gonzalez’s argument is without merit, however, because the claims are barred by the appeal waiver provision of the plea agreement. Counsel is not required to raise meritless arguments on appeal. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1990). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Gonzalez’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 5th Cir. R. 42.2.