Background
This per curiam decision arose in United States v. Trinidad De Jesus Madrid-Rivas, No. 25-50461, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 2:24-CR-2257-1. The United States was the plaintiff-appellee, and Madrid-Rivas was the defendant-appellant. The Fifth Circuit listed the matter on its Summary Calendar and filed the decision on November 6, 2026, as Document 71-1. The official opinion’s Before line identifies 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 attorney appointed to represent Madrid-Rivas moved for leave to withdraw and filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Madrid-Rivas filed several responses. The opinion does not describe the contents of those responses, identify the underlying offense or conviction, state any sentence, or recount the district-court proceedings. It also does not set out a detailed legal test under Anders or Flores; those decisions are identified as the authorities under which counsel filed the briefs.
The Court’s Holding
The court stated that it reviewed counsel’s briefs, the relevant portions of the record reflected in those briefs, and Madrid-Rivas’s responses. That is the full scope of review expressly described in the opinion. The decision does not say that the court independently reviewed the entire district-court record, and it supplies no additional account of the materials considered.
Following that review, the court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The opinion gives no issue-by-issue analysis and identifies no particular argument raised by either counsel or Madrid-Rivas. Its holding is therefore the stated agreement with counsel’s assessment, rather than a separately explained adjudication of any underlying conviction, sentence, or other district-court ruling.
The court then ordered three connected results: “counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED.” It cited Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2 immediately after the dismissal. The decision thus disposed of both counsel’s request to withdraw and the appeal itself. It did not affirm a judgment on the merits, remand the case, or identify any issue for further appellate consideration.
Key Takeaways
- Appointed counsel sought leave to withdraw and submitted briefs under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores; Madrid-Rivas filed several responses.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s briefs, the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Madrid-Rivas’s responses, then agreed that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
- The court granted counsel’s motion, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the case, and dismissed the appeal, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
- The per curiam opinion is not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 and contains no discussion of an underlying offense, sentence, or specific response argument.
Why It Matters
The decision documents the Fifth Circuit’s disposition of an appointed attorney’s withdrawal request together with the associated appeal. For attorneys following the case, the operative points are the court’s express agreement that no nonfrivolous issue was presented, counsel’s release from further responsibilities, and the dismissal under Rule 42.2. The opinion’s brevity limits what can be drawn from it: it supplies no factual background or substantive analysis beyond the procedure and result described above.
Readers should not treat the dismissal as a merits affirmance or as a ruling on arguments that the opinion never identifies. Nor does the decision announce a universal rule beyond its disposition of this appeal. Its stated review, holding, publication limitation, and case-specific relief constitute the complete public reasoning and outcome.