
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Horacio GALINDEZ-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40678
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 16, 2008.
    Allen Harvey Hurst, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Kenneth Robert Hawk, Federal Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWTCK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Horacio Galindez-Montoya (Galindez) 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). Galindez has filed a response alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Insofar as the substantive arguments underlying Galindez’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims can be construed as challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the calculation of his guideline sentencing range, those claims have no merit. Galindez has not demonstrated that the district court erred in the calculation of his offense level or his criminal history category. Galindez’s assertion that he was forced to proceed without an interpreter is contradicted by the record and is therefore without a factual basis.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Galindez’s claim that counsel was ineffective for advising him that if he pleaded guilty, he would receive a sentence of imprisonment of 41 to 46 months. 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.” See United States v. 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 Galindez’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 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     