Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alexis MORGANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-08
Citations: 326 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 08-51171
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alexis MORGANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alexis MORGANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-51171
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 8, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Michael Economidy, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Alexis Morganfield, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Alexis Morganfield has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Morganfield has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Morganfield's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. See Fed.R.CRImP. 36. The restitution order states the amount of restitution as both "$387,405.87" and "$387,406.87." The judgment should be amended to reflect that the amount of restitution is $387,406.87, which is the total of the victims' individual restitution awards. The judgment's reference to "$387,405.87" should be deleted and replaced with "$387,406.87."
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. This matter is REMANDED for correction of the clerical error pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. Mor-ganfield's pro se motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.