Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis BOSQUES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 433 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 10-30224
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis BOSQUES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis BOSQUES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30224
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 15, 2011.
Camille Ann Domingue, Brett L. Gray-son, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Mark David Plaisanee, Esq., Baker, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Luis Bosques-Gutierrez, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Counsel appointed to represent Jose Bosques-Gutierrez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bosques-Gutierrez has not filed a response.
Counsel's briefs fail 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 briefs fail to address all relevant issues and contain only a cursory examination of the district court's compliance with Fed.R. Crim.P. 11.
Although Flores teaches that such facially inadequate briefs should not be accepted, 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. Counsel 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.