United States v. Hinton

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Hinton

360 F. App'x 44

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 2010

DocketNo. 08-16357

StatusPublished

This text of 360 F. App'x 44 (United States v. Hinton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hinton, 360 F. App'x 44 (11th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Harrell, appointed counsel for Willie Hinton, has filed a motion to with[45]*45draw from further representation, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because our independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, we grant the motion to withdraw.

The jury convicted Hinton of possession with the intent to distribute oxycodone within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility, but in its resentencing order, the district court inadvertently sentenced Hinton for “possession with intent to distribute oxycodone in a school zone.” The penalties for these offenses are identical. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860. We therefore affirm Hinton’s conviction and sentence but remand with instructions to correct the clerical error in the district court’s resen-tencing order. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36.

MOTION GRANTED. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Harrell, appointed counsel for Willie Hinton, has filed a motion to with[45]*45draw from further representation, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because our independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, we grant the motion to withdraw.

The jury convicted Hinton of possession with the intent to distribute oxycodone within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility, but in its resentencing order, the district court inadvertently sentenced Hinton for “possession with intent to distribute oxycodone in a school zone.” The penalties for these offenses are identical. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860. We therefore affirm Hinton’s conviction and sentence but remand with instructions to correct the clerical error in the district court’s resen-tencing order. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36.

MOTION GRANTED. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F. App'x 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hinton-ca11-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack