Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40665/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40665-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Tyrone Adams
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40665

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LARRY TYRONE ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-16-8

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Larry Tyrone Adams 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). 

Adams 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 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-40665 Document: 00513083767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2015
No. 14-40665

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 reflects a clerical error in the written judgment in that the 

judgment indicates that Adams was convicted of the offense of conspiring to 

“Possess with the Intent to Manufacture and Distribute” methamphetamine, 

whereas Adams pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with the intent to 

distribute methamphetamine, as charged in the Second Superseding 

Indictment. Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of 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: 14-40665 Document: 00513083767 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2015