Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clayton Bob BRYAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-22
Citations: 387 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 09-50794
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clayton Bob BRYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clayton Bob BRYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50794
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 22, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dusty Gallivan, Gallivan & Associates, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Clayton Bob Bryan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 788, 87 S.Ct. 1896, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bryan has filed a response and motion for the appointment of substitute counsel. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Bryan's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment should be corrected to reflect that Bryan was convicted and sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846 rather than § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See Fed. R.Crim.P. 36.
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. Bryan's motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). This matter is REMANDED for correction of the clerical error pursuant to Fed.R.CrimP. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.