United States v. Carlton Alexander

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-11873
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11873 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11873 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLTON RAMON ALEXANDER, a.k.a. Duke,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cr-00297-LSC-HNJ-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-11873 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11873

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Perry Steen, appointed counsel for Carlton Alexander in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Alexander’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. However, because the final judgment contains a clerical error, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting this clerical error. The judgment erroneously states that Alexander was convicted under 1 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(C). The district court is instructed to correct the judgment to reflect that Alexander’s conviction was under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(C), which is the statute listed in the indictment, the plea agreement, and Alexander’s presentence investigation report. See United States v. James, 642 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 2011) (remanding for correction of clerical error in the statute of conviction listed in the judgment).