Background
Serbelio Tepaz-Perez was the defendant and appellant in No. 26-50330, with the United States of America as plaintiff and appellee. The appeal came to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the district-court case was identified as USDC No. 2:24-CR-1925-1. The Fifth Circuit considered the matter on its Summary Calendar.
The attorney appointed to represent Tepaz-Perez moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tepaz-Perez did not file a response. The opinion does not describe the underlying district-court proceedings, identify any conviction or sentence, or set out particular arguments or potential issues discussed in counsel’s brief.
The case was decided per curiam on November 5, 2026. The official opinion’s Before line identifies King, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. A footnote states that the opinion was not designated for publication and cites 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit stated that it had reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected in that brief. On that review, the court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The opinion does not provide an issue-by-issue discussion or separately analyze any potential appellate argument.
The court then granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. It also excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal. These rulings addressed the appointed attorney’s continued participation in this case; the opinion does not announce any additional restriction or obligation beyond the stated withdrawal and excuse from further responsibilities.
Finally, the court dismissed the appeal, citing 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The disposition therefore consisted of three related actions: the withdrawal motion was granted, counsel was excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal was dismissed. The opinion’s stated basis was its agreement that no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review was presented, not a separately explained merits ruling on an underlying conviction, sentence, or other district-court decision.
Key Takeaways
- Appointed counsel sought leave to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders and Flores; Tepaz-Perez filed no response.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein and agreed that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
- The court granted counsel’s withdrawal motion, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal, and dismissed the appeal, citing 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
- The per curiam opinion was issued on the Summary Calendar and was not designated for publication under 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Why It Matters
The opinion documents the procedural steps the Fifth Circuit took after appointed counsel sought to withdraw through an Anders and Flores filing. It identifies the materials the court reviewed, records the absence of a response from Tepaz-Perez, and states the court’s conclusion concerning the absence of a nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
For attorneys following criminal appeals and appointed-counsel practice, the order also makes the precise disposition clear: counsel was permitted to withdraw and relieved of further responsibilities in this appeal, while the appeal itself was dismissed. The opinion supplies no underlying factual history or substantive analysis of potential claims, so its holding should not be read as a detailed merits assessment of issues it does not discuss.