Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudolph TATUM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-26
Citations: 608 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 14-50001
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudolph TATUM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudolph TATUM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50001
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 26, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Kenneth Sergi, David K. Sergi & Associates, P.C., San Marcos, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Rudolph Tatum, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Rudolph Tatum 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). Tatum has not filed 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. 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.
The record, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment states that Tatum pleaded guilty to Count Two of an indictment. In fact, Tatum pleaded guilty to Count Two of a superseding indictment. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment 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. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.