Case: 09-20116 Document: 00511027435 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010

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

FILED February 12, 2010 No. 09-20116 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MAXIMIANO SANTIAGO-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CR-452-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Maximiano Santiago-Cruz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967). Santiago-Cruz has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Santiago-Cruz’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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-20116 Document: 00511027435 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2010 No. 09-20116

allegations.” United States v. Cantwell,

(5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Santiago-Cruz’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. Santiago-Cruz’s motion to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner,

(5th Cir. 1998).

2