Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30778/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Sykes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30778

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee.

versus

CHARLES SYKES,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-46-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Charles Sykes has 

moved to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

* 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 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-30778 Document: 00512926339 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2015
No. 14-30778

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

Cir. 2011). Sykes has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief, the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Sykes’s response. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The written judgment contains a clerical error. The district court found 

that Sykes had violated a special condition that he “participate in a program 

of testing and/or treatment for drug abuse.” The written judgment incorrectly 

identifies that condition as Special Condition No. 2 rather than No. 1. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the error 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. Pouncy, 539 F. 

App’x 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Rosales, 448 F. App’x 466, 

466−67 (5th Cir. 2011).

2

Case: 14-30778 Document: 00512926339 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2015