United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 5, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40052
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO ANTONIO VERGARA, also known as Jesus Alfredo Gracia,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-02-CR-192-1
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel appointed to represent Ricardo Antonio Vergara,
also known as Jesus Alfredo Gracia, on direct appeal has filed a
motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Vergara has filed a response raising
the following issues: (1) his guilty plea was unknowingly and
involuntarily entered; (2) he did not receive sufficient advance
notice of the information contained in the presentence report;
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40052
-2-
(3) the district court erred in failing to award him a three-
level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Vergara also argues that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel had a conflict
of interest, failed to let the DEA know that Vergara wanted to
talk, and failed to object to alleged errors contained in the
original pre-sentence report. We decline to review only
Vergara’s claim that counsel had a conflict of interest, because
the record is insufficiently developed to permit direct review of
that claim. See United States v. Maria-Martinez, 143 F.3d 914,
916 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 859
(5th Cir. 1998).
Our independent review of the briefs 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, and the APPEAL
IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.