United States v. Clark

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artee Clark, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-20248

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

May 5, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-475-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: ^[*]

The attorney appointed to represent Artee Clark has moved 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). Clark has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Specifically as to the risk-notification condition^[1] included in the judgment as part of Clark's conditions of supervised release, the fact that Clark did not object at sentencing renders plain-error review the proper standard. And any argument that imposing such a condition is plain error is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Henderson, 29 F.4th 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding no plain error in imposing an identical risk-notification condition), and United States v. Mejia-Banegas, __ F.4th __, 2022 U.S. App LEXIS 11350, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) ("We conclude that the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, by imposing the risk-notification condition."). Therefore, no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal exist here.

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.

---------

^[*] Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5 the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

^[1] That condition states: ...