Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0464-02.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. Carolyn BOEHM-McCAULEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40719
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 25, 2014.
    Randall A1 Blake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, Richard John Johnson, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carolyn Boehm-McCauley, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Carolyn Boehm-McCauley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental 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). Boehm-McCauley has filed a response and a supplemental response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Boehm-McCauley’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Any substantive challenge to the district court’s failure to orally pronounce a special condition of supervised release is barred by the valid appeal waiver in this case, and we discern no clerical error. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Slanina, 359 F.3d 356, 357-58 (5th Cir.2004).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.