Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Charles SYKES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-04
Citations: 591 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 14-30778
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Charles SYKES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Charles SYKES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30778
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 4, 2015.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Charles Sykes has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief in accor dance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 Cm. 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, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2319, 189 L.Ed.2d 196 (2014); United States v. Pouncy, 539 Fed.Appx. 437, 438 (5th Cir.2013); United States v. Rosales, 448 Fed.Appx. 466, 466-67 (5th Cir.2011).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.