You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Bosquez

Citation: 324 F. App'x 381Docket: No. 08-50135

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; April 30, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The attorney representing Mario Luis Bosquez, III, has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief following the guidelines established in Anders v. California. Bosquez did not respond to this motion. Upon independent review of the case record and the brief, the court found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Consequently, the court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, excused them from further responsibilities in this matter, and dismissed the appeal. The court also determined that this opinion is not to be published and does not serve as precedent, as per 5th Circuit rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

Attorney Withdrawal in Appellate Proceedings

Application: The court considered and granted the attorney's request to withdraw after submitting a brief consistent with Anders v. California, having found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Reasoning: The attorney representing Mario Luis Bosquez, III, has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief following the guidelines established in Anders v. California.

Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Nonfrivolous Issues

Application: After an independent review of the case record and the submitted brief, the court found no nonfrivolous issues that warranted an appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: Upon independent review of the case record and the brief, the court found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Consequently, the court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, excused them from further responsibilities in this matter, and dismissed the appeal.

Unpublished Opinions and Precedent

Application: The court's decision in this case was not designated for publication and does not establish precedent, in line with the 5th Circuit rules.

Reasoning: The court also determined that this opinion is not to be published and does not serve as precedent, as per 5th Circuit rules.