Case: 21-20248 Document: 00516308393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 5, 2022
No. 21-20248
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Artee Clark,
Defendant—Appellant.
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
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20248 Document: 00516308393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-20248
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.
1
That condition states: “If the probation officer determines that you pose a risk to
another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require you to notify
the person about the risk and you must comply with that instruction. The probation officer
may contact the person and confirm that you have notified the person about the risk.”
2
United States v. Artee Clark
Combined Opinion