Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amanda Louise White was a criminal defendant in the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 2:25-CR-20-1) who appealed her case to the Fifth Circuit. The Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent her on appeal.
After reviewing the record, appointed counsel concluded there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Pursuant to the procedure established in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011), counsel filed a brief so stating and moved for leave to withdraw. White did not file a response.
The Court’s Holding
A three-judge panel (Judges Wiener, Willett, and Wilson) reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and the relevant portions of the record. The court agreed with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities, and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The opinion was issued per curiam and designated as unpublished.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit applied the standard Anders procedure, under which appointed counsel may withdraw upon certifying that an appeal is wholly frivolous after a conscientious review of the record.
- White’s failure to file a pro se response did not prevent the court from dismissing — the court independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the record before concurring.
- The dismissal was entered under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2, the procedural vehicle for disposing of appeals the court finds present no arguable merit.
Why It Matters
This case is a routine application of the Anders framework, which balances an indigent defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the judicial system’s interest in not pursuing wholly meritless appeals. It serves as a reminder that appointed appellate counsel have an ethical obligation to candidly assess the viability of an appeal and, where none exists, to follow the prescribed withdrawal procedure rather than press frivolous arguments.
While the decision carries no precedential weight as an unpublished summary calendar ruling, it illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s consistent practice of independently scrutinizing Anders briefs before granting withdrawal and dismissal — ensuring defendants receive at least a baseline appellate review even when counsel finds nothing to argue.