Background
Amanda Louise White was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-CR-20-1) and appealed with the assistance of appointed Federal Public Defender counsel. After reviewing the record, White’s appointed counsel concluded there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw from representation.
Counsel filed an Anders brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Fifth Circuit’s implementing decision in United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). The Anders procedure allows appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when, after a conscientious review of the record, counsel determines that any appeal would be wholly frivolous. White did not file a response to counsel’s brief.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Wiener, Willett, and Wilson independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. The court concurred with appointed counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The court granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the matter, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s Anders procedure requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potential appellate issues before seeking withdrawal; the court independently evaluates the record to confirm frivolousness.
- A defendant’s failure to file a response to an Anders brief does not prevent the court from proceeding to dismiss a meritless appeal.
- Once the court concurs that no nonfrivolous issue exists, it both grants the withdrawal motion and dismisses the appeal in the same order.
Why It Matters
This routine Anders disposition illustrates the procedural safeguard that prevents appointed counsel from abandoning an indigent criminal defendant without judicial oversight. The court’s independent review of the record — even in the absence of any response from the defendant — ensures that potentially meritorious claims are not lost solely because counsel concluded the appeal was frivolous.
Because the opinion is unpublished and designated summary calendar, it carries no precedential weight in the Fifth Circuit, but it reflects the court’s consistent application of the Anders framework to efficiently resolve appeals where no colorable legal issue exists.