Background
This per curiam decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit arose from an appeal taken by Raymundo Bernal Saucedo from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, identified in the appellate caption as USDC No. 3:24-CR-423-1. The case was placed on the Fifth Circuit’s summary calendar, and the panel consisted of Circuit Judges Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt. The opinion was filed on November 5, 2026, and carried the docket number 26-10225. A footnote to the per curiam designation stated that the opinion was not designated for publication, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.
The procedural posture before the court was defined by a motion from the attorney appointed to represent Saucedo on appeal. Appointed counsel moved for leave to withdraw from the representation and, in connection with that motion, filed a brief prepared in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Those authorities govern the procedure by which appointed appellate counsel who concludes that an appeal lacks any nonfrivolous issue may seek to withdraw while still protecting the defendant’s rights through a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The opinion records that Saucedo himself did not file any response to counsel’s motion or brief.
The opinion does not describe the underlying criminal case, the nature of the conviction or sentence, the issues counsel considered, or the arguments that might have been raised. Its entire substantive content is devoted to the withdrawal motion, the court’s review of counsel’s submission, and the resulting disposition of the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s reasoning, stated in full, was that it had reviewed counsel’s brief together with the relevant portions of the record reflected in that brief, and that it concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. That concurrence is the operative legal conclusion of the decision: the panel independently agreed, based on its own review of the brief and the record portions identified therein, that no nonfrivolous ground existed on which the appeal could proceed.
On the basis of that conclusion, the court granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. The order expressly excused counsel from further responsibilities in the appeal. The court then dismissed the appeal itself, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2, the rule under which the court disposes of appeals in this procedural setting. The disposition was thus twofold: the attorney-client relationship between appointed counsel and Saucedo was ended for purposes of the appeal, and the appeal was terminated without merits review of any underlying issue.
The decision reflects the standard operation of the Anders framework in the Fifth Circuit as implemented through Flores: when appointed counsel files a compliant brief and the court’s own review confirms the absence of any nonfrivolous issue, the court may both permit withdrawal and dismiss the appeal. The opinion supplies no additional reasoning, no discussion of particular potential issues, and no analysis of the district court proceedings beyond the citation to the lower court’s docket number.
Key Takeaways
- Appointed appellate counsel for Raymundo Bernal Saucedo moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores; Saucedo filed no response.
- The Fifth Circuit panel — Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt — reviewed counsel’s brief and the record portions reflected therein and concurred 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 under 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
- The opinion is unpublished under 5th Cir. R. 47.5 and contains no discussion of the underlying offense, conviction, sentence, or any specific potential appellate issue.
Why It Matters
This decision is a routine but instructive example of the Anders withdrawal process functioning as designed in the Fifth Circuit. For criminal defense practitioners, it confirms the mechanical steps the court expects: a brief filed in accordance with Anders and Flores, an opportunity for the defendant to respond, and an independent judicial review of the brief and the record portions it identifies. When that review yields agreement with counsel’s no-merit assessment, the court will grant withdrawal and dismiss the appeal in a single order, citing Rule 42.2.
The opinion also illustrates the limits of what such orders communicate. Because the court’s review is confined to counsel’s brief and the record portions reflected therein, and because the dismissal rests on the absence of any nonfrivolous issue rather than on a merits ruling, the decision establishes nothing about the underlying case and carries no precedential weight — a point underscored by its nonpublication under Rule 47.5. Attorneys handling similar appointments can look to this order as a template for how the court disposes of conceded-frivolousness appeals on its summary calendar.