United States v. Cervantes, 795 F.3d 1189

Defendant Ezequiel Perez Cervantes pleaded guilty to two drug counts and two firearm counts and was sentenced to 111 months after a substantial §5K1.1 downward departure.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw, asserting no non-frivolous issues on appeal.
Counsel mailed the Anders brief to Cervantes but did not provide a Spanish translation, and counsel had not met or spoken with Cervantes in person because Cervantes does not read or speak English and was transferred far from counsel’s office.
Counsel acknowledged he knew Cervantes did not understand English and cited budgetary constraints for not providing a translated brief.
The panel recognized that mere mailing of an English Anders brief to a non-English-speaking client raises potential due process problems and sought guidance from sister circuits’ precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mailing an English Anders brief to a client who does not understand English satisfies due process notice requirements	Counsel contends mailing the brief constitutes compliance with Anders notice obligations	Cervantes (through court’s concern) argues mailing in an incomprehensible language fails to notify or explain rights	Court held mailing only an English-language brief to a non-English-speaking defendant is insufficient under due process
What steps counsel must take when the client does not understand English before the court rules on an Anders brief	Counsel suggested limited steps due to practical constraints	Court (reflecting defendant’s interest) urged reasonable efforts to communicate the substance in a language understood by the client	Court adopted Leyba/Moreno-Torres approach: counsel must make reasonable efforts (in-person or telephone with interpreter, or written notice in client’s language) to explain the Anders brief, rights, and 30-day period to file a pro se response

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (authorizes counsel to seek leave to withdraw on appeal when appeal is frivolous and requires notifying the defendant and appellate court of potential issues)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties under the circumstances)
United States v. Leyba, 379 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2004) (due process requires counsel to communicate Anders substance to non-English-speaking clients by means they understand)
United States v. Moreno-Torres, 768 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2014) (adopts Leyba approach; counsel must explain Anders substance and rights in a language defendant understands)
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2005) (describes Anders notification procedure and that defendant may file pro se arguments)