Background
David Nanez Ramirez, III, appealed from proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Fifth Circuit resolved the appeal on its summary calendar in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ramirez’s appointed attorney moved for leave to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez did not file a response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record identified in it. The court agreed with counsel that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the case, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Key Takeaways
- An appointed attorney may seek withdrawal by filing an Anders brief when counsel concludes that an appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue.
- The Fifth Circuit independently reviewed the brief and relevant portions of the record before agreeing with counsel’s assessment.
- The court granted withdrawal and dismissed the appeal after finding no nonfrivolous appellate issue.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s procedure for resolving a criminal appeal following an Anders submission. Counsel’s assessment alone did not end the appeal; the panel conducted its own review before permitting withdrawal and dismissing the case.