Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Lynn WARD, also known as A. P., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-22
Citations: 637 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 15-30634
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Lynn WARD, also known as A. P., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Lynn WARD, also known as A. P., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30634
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 22, 2016.
Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brandon Bonaparte Brown, U.S. Attorney’s Office,- Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Gary Lynn Ward, St. Charles, MO, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gary Lynn Ward 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), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Ward has not fíled a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. However, in light of the nonrever-sible error in categorizing the conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(E)(ii), the judgment of the district court is REFORMED to show that Ward was convicted and sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(E)(1). See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir.2009). 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.