USA v. Anita-Botello, No. 21-40742 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-40742 Document: 00516322129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 17, 2022 No. 21-40742 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Adrian Anita-Botello, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21-CR-478-1 Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Adrian Anita-Botello 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). Anita-Botello has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-40742 Document: 00516322129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 No. 21-40742 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Anita-Botello’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Anita-Botello’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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. Anita-Botello’s request for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 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.