Summary
remanding to correct the amended judgment by adding a checkmark to clarify that the indictment, first superseding indictment, and second superseding indictment were dismissed
Summary of this case from United States v. CooperOpinion
No. 19-40636
04-27-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. VICKI STARK-FITTS, also known as Sealed4, Defendant-Appellant
Conference Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:12-CR-119-4 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. --------
The attorney appointed to represent Vicki Stark-Fitts 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). Stark-Fitts has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's 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. 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.
We note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written amended judgment. At the sentencing hearing, the Government moved to dismiss the remaining counts of the previous indictments. The amended judgment lists the indictment, first superseding indictment, and second superseding indictment, but it omits the checkmark on the box next to the word "are" before the word "dismissed." Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Ulloa-Osorio, 637 F. App'x 142, 143 (5th Cir. 2016).