Automated Summary
Key Facts
The attorney appointed to represent Khalid Amill moved for leave to withdraw under Anders v. California. The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel's brief and the record, found no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, granted the motion for leave to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
The attorney appointed to represent defendant Khalid Amill moved for leave to withdraw, filing a brief in accordance with Anders v. California and United States v. Flores. Amill did not file a response. After reviewing counsel's brief and relevant portions of the record, the court determined the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Holdings
The court granted counsel's motion for leave to withdraw representation of defendant Khalid Amill and dismissed the appeal, finding the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Remedies
- Court granted the attorney's motion for leave to withdraw from representation
- Court dismissed the appeal
Legal Principles
The court applied the Anders v. California standard for appointed counsel withdrawal. Counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief stating the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues. The court reviewed the brief and record, concurred with counsel's assessment, granted the motion for leave to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities, and dismissed the appeal.
Precedent Name
- United States v. Flores
- Anders v. California
Judge Name
- Judge Ho
- Judge KING
- Judge HAYNES
Passage Text
- 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. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
- The attorney appointed to represent Khalid Amill has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).