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. Soto

Citation: 691 F. App'x 139Docket: No. 16-11543 Conference Calendar

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; June 20, 2017; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Federal Public Defender assigned to represent Fabian Lee Soto has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief under the standards set forth in Anders v. California and United States v. Flores. Soto did not respond to this request. After reviewing the brief and relevant record portions, the court agrees with counsel's conclusion that the appeal lacks any nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. Consequently, the court grants the motion for leave to withdraw, relieves counsel of further obligations, and dismisses the appeal. The opinion will not be published and does not serve as precedent, except in specific circumstances outlined in the applicable court rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Nonfrivolous Issues

Application: The court dismisses the appeal after determining there are no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review.

Reasoning: After reviewing the brief and relevant record portions, the court agrees with counsel's conclusion that the appeal lacks any nonfrivolous issues for appellate review.

Non-precedential Opinions

Application: The opinion in this case is not published and does not serve as precedent, except under specific circumstances defined by court rules.

Reasoning: The opinion will not be published and does not serve as precedent, except in specific circumstances outlined in the applicable court rules.

Withdrawal of Counsel under Anders v. California

Application: The court permits the withdrawal of counsel following the submission of a brief indicating a lack of nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Reasoning: The Federal Public Defender assigned to represent Fabian Lee Soto has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief under the standards set forth in Anders v. California and United States v. Flores.