IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50150
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BAUDELIO LARA-REY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-00-CR-140-ALL
--------------------
January 3, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel appointed to represent Baudelio Lara-Rey has moved
for leave to withdraw by filing a motion and brief as required by
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In response to the
Anders motion, Lara-Rey argues that the district court erred by
increasing his offense level 16 levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b), for having been previously deported subsequent to his
state court conviction for possession of cocaine. He requests
that the case be remanded for resentencing without the
enhancement for a prior aggravated felony.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-50150
-2-
Lara-Rey also contends that counsel was ineffective for
failing to investigate his case and was ineffective for failing
to file a motion for a downward departure based on cultural
assimilation. He requests that substitute counsel be appointed
to represent him on appeal. Counsel also suggests that he was
ineffective at sentencing and requests that Lara-Rey be allowed
to file a pro se appellate brief or that substitute counsel be
appointed to represent Lara-Rey on appeal. The record has not
been adequately developed for us to consider the ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States
v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363-64 (5th Cir. 1998).
Our independent review of the record, counsel’s motion and
brief, and Lara-Rey’s response thereto 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. Lara-Rey’s motion to remand and the motions for
appointment of substitute counsel are also DENIED.