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. Mendoza-Mata

Citation: 373 F. App'x 467Docket: Nos. 09-40856, 09-40859

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; April 15, 2010; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Federal Public Defender representing Joel Mendoza-Mata has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, indicating there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Mendoza-Mata did not respond to this brief. Following an independent review of the record and the brief, the court found no appealable issues. Consequently, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeals are dismissed. The court has also decided that this opinion will not be published and does not serve as precedent except in specific circumstances outlined by the 5th Circuit rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

Anders Brief Procedure

Application: The Federal Public Defender submitted an Anders brief, indicating no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, and the court conducted an independent review of the record and agreed with this assessment.

Reasoning: The Federal Public Defender representing Joel Mendoza-Mata has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, indicating there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Motion to Withdraw by Counsel

Application: The court granted the motion for the Federal Public Defender to withdraw after determining there were no appealable issues following their review.

Reasoning: Following an independent review of the record and the brief, the court found no appealable issues. Consequently, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeals are dismissed.

Non-Precedential Opinion

Application: The court decided that the opinion will not be published and will not serve as precedent, adhering to the specific circumstances set by the 5th Circuit rules.

Reasoning: The court has also decided that this opinion will not be published and does not serve as precedent except in specific circumstances outlined by the 5th Circuit rules.