Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David MANNING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-02
Citations: 690 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 16-51189 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David MANNING, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David MANNING, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-51189 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 2, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
David Manning, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent David Manning 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). Manning 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.
Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Manning' pleaded guilty to attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, but it incorrectly lists the applicable statutory provisions as 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) rather than 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(b)(1)(C).
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 the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.