
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Octavius Paul SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-20002
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2016.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Joanne Marie Musick, Musick & Musick, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Oc-tavius Paul Smith on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief that relies on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 citation omitted). Smith failed to report to begin serying 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, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); Bagwell, 376 F.3d at 410-13.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
     