Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mario Alberto Almanzan-Mata was a criminal defendant convicted in the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 7:25-CR-1756-1). The Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent him on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
After reviewing the record, appointed counsel concluded that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel accordingly moved for leave to withdraw and filed an Anders brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Almanzan-Mata did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
A three-judge panel — Circuit Judges Richman, Southwick, and Willett — reviewed counsel’s Anders 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 pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The unpublished per curiam opinion is not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.
Key Takeaways
- When appointed counsel files an Anders brief certifying that an appeal is wholly frivolous, the appellate court independently reviews the record to confirm that assessment before dismissing.
- A defendant’s failure to file a pro se response to an Anders brief does not prevent the court from proceeding to dismiss the appeal.
- Once the Fifth Circuit concurs that no nonfrivolous issues exist, it grants counsel’s withdrawal motion and dismisses the appeal under 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the routine operation of the Anders procedure in the Fifth Circuit, which balances the constitutional right to appellate counsel against the court’s interest in not adjudicating wholly frivolous appeals. Appointed counsel who conscientiously reviews the record and finds no nonfrivolous arguments can withdraw without abandoning the client, so long as they follow the Anders/Flores framework.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that the Fifth Circuit will independently scrutinize the record even when no response is filed, and that dismissal is the outcome when that review confirms counsel’s frivolity assessment.