Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0328-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gordon NUNES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-31222
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 29, 2011.
    Maurice Edwin Landrieu, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robin Elise Schulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Gordon Nunes, Pensacola, FL, pro se.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Gordon Nunes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Nunes has not filed a response. Counsel’s brief fails to comply with United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229, 232-33 (5th Cir.2011), in which we admonished that an Anders brief should address every applicable item on this court’s Anders checklist, with reference to the facts of the proceedings and citation to the record and relevant legal authority. The brief in this case fails to address all relevant issues and glosses over omissions in the rearraignment colloquy. Although Flores teaches that such a facially inadequate brief should be dismissed, we grant the Anders motion in the interest of judicial economy because it is apparent from the record that this appeal does not involve a nonfrivolous issue. The FPD is directed that future Anders filings should comply with Flores. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.