Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Wayne Frazier, Jr., was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (case no. 5:24-CR-58-1) and appealed his case to the Fifth Circuit. His court-appointed attorney, after reviewing the record, concluded that the appeal presented no legally nonfrivolous issues worthy of appellate review.
Counsel accordingly filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Fifth Circuit’s implementing authority, United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). The Anders procedure allows appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when, after a conscientious examination of the case, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous. Frazier did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Richman, Southwick, and Willett independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that no nonfrivolous issue existed for appellate review.
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2, the court granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, excused counsel from any further responsibilities in the matter, and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit applied the Anders framework, requiring the court itself to review the record before permitting appointed counsel to withdraw on grounds of frivolousness.
- Frazier’s failure to file a pro se response meant the court had only counsel’s brief and the record to review — and found no arguable issue.
- The dismissal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2 is a procedural termination of the appeal, not a ruling on the merits of any underlying conviction or sentence.
Why It Matters
This decision is a routine application of the Anders procedure, which balances an indigent defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the judicial system’s interest in avoiding wholly meritless appeals. It serves as a reminder that appointed counsel has an ethical obligation to advocate only for nonfrivolous positions, and that the court independently scrutinizes the record before allowing withdrawal.
While the case carries no precedential weight — it is unpublished under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 — it illustrates the mechanics practitioners and defendants face when appointed counsel determines an appeal cannot be pursued in good faith.