Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulysses RICHMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-25
Citations: 616 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 14-15204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulysses RICHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulysses RICHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-15204
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 25, 2015.
Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, Michael C. Bagge-Hernandez, Jeffrey F. Michelland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Myers, FL, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Neal Gary Rosensweig, PA, Hollywood, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Neal Rosensweig, appointed counsel for Ulysses Richman in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel's assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record re veals no arguable issues of merit, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Richman's convictions and sentences are
AFFIRMED.
However, we note that there is a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment lists Richman's statutes of conviction for Count 2 as 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 8419(b)(1)(C). The correct statutes, as reflected in the indictment, are 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir.2006).