Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50474/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evan Ray Goodwin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50474

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EVAN RAY GOODWIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-349-1

Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Evan Ray Goodwin has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Goodwin 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. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50474 Document: 00512947206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2015
No. 14-50474

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, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. 

The written judgment states that Goodwin pleaded guilty to the offense of 

“possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing 

methamphetamine”; however, the indictment charged, and Goodwin pleaded 

guilty to, the offense of “unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally distribut[ing]

. . . a mixture and substance containing . . . methamphetamine.” Both are 

violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of 

the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 n.16 

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2319 (2014); United States v. Rosales, 448 

F. App’x 466, 466-67 (5th Cir. 2011).

2

Case: 14-50474 Document: 00512947206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2015