Case ID: f-appx_644/html/0360-01.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. Lawrence Michael DAY, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-41077, 15-41078
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 5, 2016.
    Lawrence Michael Day, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Christopher Andrew Eason, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Cedar Park, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Lawrence Michael Day 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). Day 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 appeals present 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 APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

However, the judgment contains a clerical error. Day was convicted of conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud, and the written judgment reflects that he was convicted of conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud affecting a financial institution. We therefore REMAND to the district court for correction of this clerical error. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.