Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Thomas Wade Humphries III was a criminal defendant in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 4:25-CR-200-2) who appealed his conviction or sentence to the Fifth Circuit. The court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
Appointed counsel reviewed the record and 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. Humphries was given the opportunity to file a response but did not do so.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Stewart, Graves, and Oldham independently reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and the relevant portions of the record. The court agreed with appointed 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 in the matter, and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The opinion was not designated for publication.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit conducted an independent review of the record under the Anders framework and found no arguable basis for appeal.
- Appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw after satisfying the requirements of Anders v. California and United States v. Flores.
- Humphries’s failure to file a pro se response did not prevent the court from dismissing the appeal.
Why It Matters
This summary calendar disposition illustrates the routine operation of the Anders procedure, which balances an indigent defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against appointed counsel’s ethical obligation not to pursue wholly frivolous appeals. When both the attorney and the appellate court independently determine that no nonfrivolous issue exists, the appeal may be dismissed and counsel relieved.
Because the opinion is unpublished and arises from a straightforward application of established procedure, its precedential significance is limited. It nonetheless serves as a reminder of the procedural safeguards — including the defendant’s right to respond — built into the Anders framework in the Fifth Circuit.