Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0175-01.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. Randy Dewayne PITTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10251 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed September 28, 2017
    Emily Baker Falconer, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Randy DeWayne Pittman, Pro Se
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Randy Pittman pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release (“SR”). The term of SR exceeds the statutory maximum term for Pittman’s offense, as the parties agree. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); United States v. Vera, 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment is therefore VACATED as to the term of SR, and this matter is REMANDED to modify the sentence consistently with § 3583(b)(2).

To the extent that Pittman reurges the arguments he originally put forth in his response to counsel’s now-withdrawn motion filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he does not have the right to hybrid representation or simultaneous representation by himself and counsel. See United States v. Villafranca, 844 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1393, 197 L.Ed.2d 568 (2017). After the close of briefing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw at the request of Pittman, and Pittman filed a motion to proceed pro se. Neither counsel nor Pittman has established a “conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances” warranting removal of counsel. Fifth Circuit Plan Under the CJA § 5B. The motions are therefore DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. '