Filed: May 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-10412 Document: 00514474614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 17-10412 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar May 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADALBERTO PRIETO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:16-CR-372-2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CU
Summary: Case: 17-10412 Document: 00514474614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 17-10412 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar May 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADALBERTO PRIETO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:16-CR-372-2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CUR..
More
Case: 17-10412 Document: 00514474614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-10412
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar May 16, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
ADALBERTO PRIETO-GARCIA,
Defendant−Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:16-CR-372-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Adalberto Prieto-Garcia has moved
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 17-10412 Document: 00514474614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2018
No. 17-10412
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores,
632 F.3d 229 (5th
Cir. 2011). Prieto-Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record.
We question whether counsel’s certification that the government will
enforce the appellate waiver is sufficiently specific to the waiver in this case.
See United States v. Davis,
530 F.3d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 2008). But we need not
reach that issue, because it is not jurisdictional and because counsel examines
all potential appellate claims, even those covered by the waiver, in the brief.
See United States v. Story,
439 F.3d 226, 230−31 (5th Cir. 2006).
We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-
frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2