United States v. Forest Geffert

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 30, 2020
• Docket: 19-10558
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-10558 Document: 00515292889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 30, 2020 No. 19-10558 Lyle W. Cayce Conference Calendar Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FOREST GEFFERT, also known as Diamond,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CR-6-27

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Forrest Geffert has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (p1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Geffert 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.

* 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. Case: 19-10558 Document: 00515292889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2020

No. 19-10558

Nonetheless, our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment concerning Geffert’s copayment for mental health treatment. Although the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed a $10 copay, the written judgment erroneously reflects a $15 copay. See United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006). 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. This matter is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment concerning the copay for mental health treatment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979).