USA v. Griego, No. 21-10956 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10956 Document: 00516312884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 10, 2022 No. 21-10956 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Christina Elizabeth Griego, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:20-CR-83-6 Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Christina Elizabeth Griego 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). Griego has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10956 Document: 00516312884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2022 No. 21-10956 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. 1 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. 1 Although counsel’s brief relies in part on the appeal waiver in Griego’s plea agreement, we agree with the remainder of counsel’s analysis, which shows that there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal regardless of whether the appeal waiver is enforced. However, for future cases, counsel is reminded of her obligation to “ascertain and certify that the Government would rely on the defendant’s appellate waiver before moving to withdraw” on that basis. United States v. Acquaye, 452 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2006). 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.