United States v. Galindo-Vargas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-40118
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-40118 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-40118 FILED February 26, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jorge Alberto Galindo-Vargas,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:23-CR-1581-3 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Alberto Galindo-Vargas 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). Galindo-Vargas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40118 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2026

No. 25-40118

well as Galindo-Vargas’s response. 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. Although we concur with counsel’s conclusion that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues, we remind counsel (i) of his obligation to conduct a “conscientious examination” of the record when moving to withdraw, Anders, 385 U.S. at 744; (ii) that an Anders brief must “cover[ ] every applicable item” of this court’s public Anders checklist, Flores, 632 F.3d at 232; and (iii) that the brief should “demonstrate that [counsel] has considered the issues set forth in the checklist to the extent they apply to [the defendant’s] case,” United States v. Garland, 632 F.3d 877, 879 (5th Cir. 2011).