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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not binding
precedent, but they may be persuasive authority.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.
2