United States v. Williams

Opinion

Case: 21-20528 Document: 00516395605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2022

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

FILED No. 21-20528 July 15, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Huey P. Williams, Jr.,

Defendant—Appellant.

Application for Certificate of Appealability from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-1976 USDC No. 4:14-CR-22-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Huey P. Williams, Jr., proceeding pro se, unsuccessfully moved for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief in the district court. Now, the attorney retained to represent Williams has filed a motion for leave to withdraw with an incorporated motion regarding a certificate of appealability (COA) and a brief

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-20528 Document: 00516395605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2022

No. 21-20528

relying on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has not filed a response. Although Anders applies only to court-appointed counsel, retained counsel also have the “ethical obligations to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). Notwithstanding that the brief was prepared by retained counsel, this court could rely on it to determine if the appeal is indeed frivolous. See, e.g., United States v. Klarer, 2022 WL 963977 (5th Cir. 2022) (granting retained counsel’s Anders motion and dismissing appeal); United States v. Sanchez, 636 F. App’x 622, 622 (5th Cir. 2016) (same). 1 Because Williams failed to respond or contest retained counsel’s motion, we have no need to consider whether he should be permitted to file a pro se motion for a COA or seek to find new counsel. 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.

1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not binding precedent, but they may be persuasive authority. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.