Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0205-02.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. David MANNING, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-51189 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
    David Manning, Pro Se
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent David Manning 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). Manning 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.

Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Manning' pleaded guilty to attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, but it incorrectly lists the applicable statutory provisions as 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) rather than 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C).

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. This matter 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.