Background
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this per curiam opinion in United States of America v. Francisco Montero-Duran, No. 26-50293. The case came to the court on appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the district court docket number was USDC No. 7:24-CR-84-1. The opinion identifies the United States as plaintiff-appellee and Francisco Montero-Duran as defendant-appellant. It was filed on November 6, 2026, and appears on the court’s summary calendar.
The official opinion’s “Before” line lists Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. A footnote states that the opinion is not designated for publication and cites Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5. The opinion does not describe the underlying district court proceedings, the nature of the criminal case, or any factual background beyond the appellate representation issue addressed in its brief discussion.
The attorney appointed to represent Montero-Duran 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). The opinion states that Montero-Duran did not file a response. It does not reproduce counsel’s brief or identify particular arguments raised in it.
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. The opinion describes the review in those specific terms; it does not separately state that the court reviewed the entire record. After that review, the court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The court then granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. It also excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal. These rulings resolved the appointed attorney’s request to end the representation in this appellate proceeding.
In the same disposition, the court dismissed the appeal. The opinion cites Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2 in connection with that dismissal. The court did not describe the disposition as an affirmance, and it did not announce a ruling on any underlying criminal issue. The stated basis for the disposition was the court’s agreement with counsel’s assessment that no nonfrivolous issue was presented for appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- Appointed counsel 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).
- Montero-Duran did not file a response to counsel’s submission.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, then agreed that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
- The court granted the withdrawal motion, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal, and dismissed the appeal, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Why It Matters
The opinion records the Fifth Circuit’s disposition of an appointed attorney’s withdrawal request in an appeal where counsel submitted an Anders brief and the appellant filed no response. It identifies the authorities under which the brief was filed, states the scope of the court’s review, and gives the court’s conclusion that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
For attorneys following appellate representation and withdrawal procedures, the opinion provides a concise example of the court granting leave to withdraw and excusing counsel from further appellate responsibilities while also dismissing the appeal. Its practical disposition should be distinguished from a merits decision: the opinion does not set out an underlying offense, conviction, sentence, plea, or substantive criminal-law holding. It is a per curiam, summary-calendar opinion that the court expressly did not designate for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.