USA v. Herbert Vanegas, No. 15-40788 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-40788 Document: 00513406592 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40788 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. HERBERT FRANKLIN VANEGAS, also known as Herbert Franklin VanegasOrtiz, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CR-799 Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Herbert Franklin Vanegas 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). Vanegas has not filed a response. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40788 Document: 00513406592 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2016 No. 15-40788 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Vanegas’s appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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. 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.