Case ID: f-appx_448/html/0451-01.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. Micaiah PRUITT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-40304
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2011.
    James Andrew Williams, I, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Denise S. Benson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Sherman, TX, Bernard John Shealy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Beaumont, TX, Amy R. Blalock, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, For Defendant-Appellant.
    Micaiah Pruitt, Safford, AZ, pro se.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Micaiah Pruitt 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). Pruitt has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Pruitt’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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.

The record reveals a clerical error in the judgment. The district court orally imposed restitution in the amount of $1,384,015.26. Although this sum is correctly reflected in the monetary penalties section of the written judgment, the judgment’s payment schedule incorrectly lists the restitution amount as $1,384,115.26. This case is therefore REMANDED for the correction of this clerical error. Fed. R.Crim. P. 36.

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.