Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50001/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudolph Tatum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50001

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUDOLPH TATUM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-128

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rudolph Tatum 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). 

Tatum 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

June 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-50001 Document: 00513096031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2015
No. 14-50001

2

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 Tatum pleaded guilty to Count Two of an 

indictment. In fact, Tatum pleaded guilty to Count Two of a superseding 

indictment. 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).

Case: 14-50001 Document: 00513096031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2015