Background
In this per curiam decision from the Fifth Circuit’s summary calendar, the court addressed an appointed attorney’s request to withdraw from representing Pedro Pablo Castaneda on appeal. The United States was the plaintiff-appellee, and Castaneda was the defendant-appellant. The appeal came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in USDC No. 3:23-CR-455-1. The opinion was filed November 5, 2026, and was not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.
The attorney appointed to represent Castaneda moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Castaneda did not respond. The opinion does not describe the underlying conviction, offense, sentence, evidence, district-court proceedings, or any particular issue that might have been raised on appeal. Its stated focus is counsel’s motion, the Anders brief, and the court’s assessment of whether the appeal presented a nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The Court’s Holding
The panel of Circuit Judges Richman, Haynes, and Graves stated that it had reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected in that brief. After that review, the court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The opinion does not identify individual potential issues or supply issue-by-issue analysis; its expressed conclusion concerns the appeal as presented through counsel’s submission and the record portions reflected there.
The court granted the motion for leave to withdraw. It also excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal and dismissed the appeal, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The disposition therefore included three distinct components: withdrawal was granted, appointed counsel’s further responsibilities in the appeal ended, and Castaneda’s appeal was dismissed. The court did not announce a ruling on any underlying criminal-law issue, and the opinion supplies no basis for treating the dismissal as a decision on the merits of a conviction, sentence, or other district-court ruling.
Key Takeaways
- Appointed counsel moved for leave to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Castaneda did not respond.
- 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 counsel’s withdrawal motion, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal, and dismissed the appeal, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
- The per curiam opinion was issued on the summary calendar and was not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.
Why It Matters
The decision documents the procedural resolution of an appeal in which appointed counsel sought to withdraw through an Anders submission. The court’s stated review was tied to counsel’s brief and the relevant record portions reflected in it, and its conclusion was that no nonfrivolous issue was presented for appellate review. For attorneys following Anders practice in the Fifth Circuit, the opinion provides a concise example of the court granting withdrawal, relieving counsel of further appellate responsibilities, and dismissing the appeal in the same disposition.
The opinion’s brevity also limits what can be drawn from it. It does not disclose the underlying criminal proceedings or evaluate any specific appellate argument, so it should not be characterized as resolving a substantive criminal-law question. Its reported holding is the court’s agreement with counsel’s no-nonfrivolous-issue assessment and the resulting withdrawal and dismissal orders.