Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0205-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel Eugene BAKER, also known as Samuel E. Baker, also known as Samuel Baker, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-51087 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 2, 2017
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Samuel Eugene Baker, Pro Se
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Eugene Baker has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Baker 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.

However, there is a clerical error in the written judgment, which fails to reflect the dismissal of certain counts of the indictment. The record shows that Baker was convicted and sentenced on Count Four and that the remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. The amended judgment therefore should reflect that Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six of the indictment were dismissed on the Government’s motion. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.