Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ken Michelle STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-07
Citations: 710 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 17-30478 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ken Michelle STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ken Michelle STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-30478 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed 02/07/2018
William James Quinlan, Jr., Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollens-head Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Ken Michelle Stevenson, Pro se
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ken Michelle Stevenson 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). Stevenson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We agree 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Specifically, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Stevenson's motion to clarify his sentence. We do not read the district court's order as addressing the propriety of a nunc pro tunc designation, see BOP Program Statement 5160.05 at 5-6, nor the potential merits of any claim Stevenson may have under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see generally Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2010).