United States v. Castillo
203 F. App'x 673
October 25, 2006 · Docket 05-41435
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
Counsel for Castillo filed the required Anders brief, satisfying the procedural requirement for appointed representation before seeking to withdraw.
- Headnote 2
Castillo received the motion but did not respond; the court’s independent review revealed no viable issues, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
- Headnote 3
The court cited Rule 42.2 in granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissing Castillo’s appeal.
- Headnote 4
The court’s independent review concluded that Castillo’s appeal contained no viable issues, so dismissal was appropriate.
- Headnote 5
The court entered a non‑published order, invoking Rule 47.5.4 to limit the decision’s precedential effect.
- Headnote 6
Castillo was served with the motion but filed no response, satisfying the notice requirement.
- Headnote 7
The court reviewed the brief filed by counsel under Anders v. California, found no viable issues, and therefore excused counsel from further responsibilities.
- Headnote 8
Castillo received a copy of counsel’s motion but filed no response; the court nevertheless ensured procedural fairness by providing notice and the chance to be heard.
- Headnote 9
The court’s independent review of the brief and record disclosed no non‑frivolous issues, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
- Headnote 10
The opinion cites Rule 42.2 as the procedural authority for granting counsel’s withdrawal and dismissing the appeal when the record yields no viable issues.
- Headnote 11
The court expressly held that this opinion is unpublished and therefore carries no precedential value under Rule 47.5.4.
- Headnote 12
The court noted that the appointed attorney filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, satisfying the statutory requirement to pinpoint any viable issues before moving for withdrawal.
- Headnote 13
The record shows the appellant received a copy of counsel’s motion but filed no response, indicating the court provided the required notice and chance to be heard prior to review.
- Headnote 14
The court’s review disclosed no non‑frivolous issues; consequently, it granted the motion, excused counsel, and dismissed the appeal, citing Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
- Headnote 15
Because the independent review found no non‑frivolous issues, the court dismissed the appeal without reaching any substantive merits, consistent with the procedural holding.
- Headnote 16
The court expressly stated that, pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this opinion is unpublished and therefore carries no precedential effect.
Opinion
The attorney appointed to represent Adolfo Castillo has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Castillo received a copy of counsel’s motion but filed no response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.