IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20382

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STACEY LAIR LEE-EASILEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-88-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stacey Lair LeeEasiley 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). Lee-Easiley has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Lee-Easiley’s 

 

* 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 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20382 Document: 00513543310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2016
No. 15-20382

2

appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea 

agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the 

need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. 

Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. 

Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent 

review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 

concur in counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue 

for appellate review. 

Counsel suggests that the statement of special conditions of supervised 

release in Lee-Easiley’s written judgment of conviction and sentence may 

contain a clerical error. The written judgment states: “If a fine or restitution 

amount has been imposed, the defendant is prohibited from incurring new 

credit charges or opening additional lines of credit without approval of the 

probation officer.” This language is nearly identical to that of the nonmandatory special condition found at U.S.S.G § 5D1.3(d)(2), but it omits a final 

conditional clause: “unless the defendant is in compliance with the payment 

schedule.” Because the district court failed to orally pronounce this special 

condition, we cannot determine whether the omission was intentional or 

inadvertent. 

A challenge to the conditions of supervised release in the written 

judgment is an appeal of the sentence and is thus generally precluded by the 

waiver of appeal. United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 (5th Cir. 2014). 

However, a clerical error relating to the special conditions of supervised release

is correctable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See FED. R. CRIM.

P. 36 (“After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any 

time correct a clerical error in a judgment.”); see also United States v. Rosales, 

 Case: 15-20382 Document: 00513543310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2016
No. 15-20382

3

448 F. App’x 466, 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (omission of a qualifying clause in the 

written judgment is a clerical error that may be corrected by the district court). 

If the omission of the conditional clause was a clerical error, Lee-Easiley may 

move the district court to correct the judgment.

The 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. 

 Case: 15-20382 Document: 00513543310 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2016