Court Opinion

ID: 9381143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:33.705103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.336308
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14231    Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                            [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-14231
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       VICTOR HERBERT CARROLL,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00134-CG-MU-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14231      Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 03/21/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  21-14231

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Richard Shields, appointed counsel for Victor Carroll in this
       direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further repre-
       sentation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
       California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the en-
       tire record shows that the district court’s final judgment contains a
       clerical error in listing the crime of conviction on Count 1 as a con-
       spiracy offense under 21 U.S.C. § 846, rather than the substantive
       offense of possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of
       methamphetamine under § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), but otherwise
       reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal
       is correct. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND
       to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical
       error. United States v. Anderton, 136 F.3d 747, 751 (11th Cir. 1998)
       (per curiam). Otherwise, because our independent examination of
       the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s mo-
       tion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Carroll’s convictions and sen-
       tences are AFFIRMED.