Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-11139/USCOURTS-ca5-18-11139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Moreno
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11139

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-468-10

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Moreno on appeal has 

filed a motion to withdraw and a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). The Anders brief is inadequate in several respects, including a failure 

to discuss the appeal waiver in Moreno’s plea agreement and a failure to utilize

this court’s Anders checklist to perform a proper analysis of the plea and 

sentence. Moreno has not filed a response. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-11139 Document: 00515300419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 18-11139

2

The “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” is an equitable doctrine that 

“limits a criminal defendant’s access to the judicial system whose authority he 

evades.” Bagwell v. Dretke, 376 F.3d 408, 410-13 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal 

citation omitted); see Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 240-42 

(1993) (noting that Supreme Court “cases consistently and unequivocally 

approve dismissal as an appropriate sanction when a prisoner is a fugitive”). 

Moreno was supposed to surrender to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on 

September 18, 2018, but he failed to report to begin his sentence. He has not 

returned to custody since he became a fugitive, and it is unlikely that he will 

do so, voluntarily or otherwise, in the foreseeable future. Under these 

circumstances, dismissal of Moreno’s appeal is appropriate. Dismissal of the 

appeal is further supported by enforceability concerns, serves an important 

deterrent function, and “advances an interest in efficient, dignified appellate 

practice.” Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 242; see Bagwell, 376 F.3d at 410-13.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED, and counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is DENIED as moot.

Case: 18-11139 Document: 00515300419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020