United States v. Aurelio Gurrusquieta-Anselmo

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · December 17, 2019 · No. No. 19-10459

Summary

Fifth Circuit granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal as frivolous under *Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and *United States v. Flores*, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). The court reviewed the record and agreed with counsel that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. This unpublished per curiam opinion addresses the standard for Anders briefs and dismissal of frivolous criminal appeals.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Haynes; Duncan; Engelhardt
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
December 17, 2019
Docket number
No. 19-10459
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The defendant appealed his conviction. The Federal Public Defender moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and filed a brief in accordance with Anders and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). The defendant did not file a response.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the record and counsel's brief to determine whether the appeal presents any nonfrivolous issue for appellate review, consistent with the Anders procedure.
Precedential value
Unpublished
Parties
Aurelio Gurrusquieta-Anselmo v. United States of America
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedureright to counsel

Practice areas

Criminal LawAppellate Procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal presents any nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Holdings

  1. The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Key quotations

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

Factual background

The opinion does not provide details of the underlying criminal case, as the appeal was dismissed as frivolous under Anders. The only information is that the defendant was convicted in the Northern District of Texas, and the Federal Public Defender was appointed for appeal.

Procedural history

The defendant was convicted in the Northern District of Texas (case No. 3:18-CR-402-1). He appealed, and the appointed Federal Public Defender filed an Anders brief, concluding the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues. The defendant did not respond. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the brief and relevant portions of the record.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…