USA v. Octavius Smith, No. 15-20002 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-20002 Document: 00513388497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-20002 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 19, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. OCTAVIUS PAUL SMITH, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-88-3 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Octavius Paul Smith on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief that relies on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Smith has not filed a response. 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 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-20002 Document: 00513388497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2016 No. 15-20002 citation omitted). Smith failed to report to begin serving his sentence on January 2, 2015, and has not returned to custody since he became a fugitive. It is unlikely that Smith will return, under his own volition or otherwise, in the foreseeable future. Under the circumstances, dismissal of Smith’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 v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 240-42 (1993); Bagwell, 376 F.3d at 410-13. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.