Case: 21-10857 Document: 00516427365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2022 No. 21-10857 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Gary E. Larock, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 6:13-CR-44

Before Smith, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Several years ago, Gary Larock, Jr., failed to register as a sex offender.

That is a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). After getting caught, Larock pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced him to just over three years’ im- prisonment and fifteen years’ supervised release.

Since then, Larock has been in and out of prison for violating release

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum- stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-10857 Document: 00516427365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022

No. 21-10857

conditions. When he violated his release conditions for the third time, the probation office told the district court. Larock admitted to his violations, and the district court again revoked his supervised release, imposing ten months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release.

Larock then filed this appeal. His counsel believes it frivolous and has moved to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s Anders brief is “facially adequate”: It identifies “possibly important issues” that Larock might appeal, and it “furnish[es] th[is] court with references to the record and legal authorities to aid” our review. United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229, 232 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted).

That means our task here is narrow. We look only to the parts of the record “that relate to the issues discussed in [counsel’s] brief.” Id. at 233 (quotation omitted). If that search, plus the district court’s decision, reveals no nonfrivolous appellate issue, we permit counsel’s withdrawal and dismiss the appeal. Ibid.

Counsel found no error in the revocation proceedings or the sentence.

After reviewing the relevant parts of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree.

We see no nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

We GRANT counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and DISMISS Larock’s appeal. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.