United States v. Holt

Case: 21-50636 Document: 00516217688 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 25, 2022
No. 21-50636
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Royshena Holt,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:17-CR-21
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The counsel appointed to represent Royshena Holt on appeal has filed
a motion to withdraw and a brief that relies on Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Holt has filed a response as well as a motion to appoint new
counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions, as well
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50636 Document: 00516217688 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2022
No. 21-50636
as Holt’s response. Holt’s notice of appeal was untimely and the district
court denied her motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, which
is dispositive. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 573-74 (5th
Cir. 2006).
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. Holt’s pro se motion to appoint
new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d
901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
2