Court Opinion

ID: 9404429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 00:00:43.572397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.897519
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50808     Document: 00516797119         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                            REVISED 06/22/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                 No. 22-50808                          June 19, 2023
                               Summary Calendar
                               ____________                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                      versus

   Christopher Teon Fults,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 6:19-CR-262-2
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
          The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Teon Fults has
   moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
   v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229
   (5th Cir. 2011). Fults 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 and will therefore grant the motion to withdraw.
Case: 22-50808      Document: 00516797119          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                    No. 22-50808

          The court, however, sua sponte noticed an error in the restitution
   order. Although the total amount of restitution awarded is correct, the order
   has apparently omitted two victims and has included their loss amounts in
   the amounts awarded to two other victims. In an unpublished opinion, this
   court has held that such an error may be corrected under Federal Rule of
   Criminal Procedure 36, United States v. Crawley, 463 F. App’x 418, 420-22
   (5th Cir. 2012). Consistent with Crawley, we hold that Fults’s restitution
   order does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal because he is liable for
   the same restitution amount regardless of the ultimate recipients.
          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. We REMAND for the limited
   purpose of correction of the judgment concerning the designation of the
   restitution payees and the allocation of restitution among the payees. See
   Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

                                             2