United States v. Rudolph Tatum

608 F. App'x 279
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 2015
Docket14-50001
StatusUnpublished

This text of 608 F. App'x 279 (United States v. Rudolph Tatum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Rudolph Tatum, 608 F. App'x 279 (5th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rudolph Tatum has moved for leave to *280 withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Tatum 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. 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.

The record, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment states that Tatum pleaded guilty to Count Two of an indictment. In fact, Tatum pleaded guilty to Count Two of a superseding indictment. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 n. 16 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2319, 189 L.Ed.2d 196 (2014); United States v. Rosales, 448 Fed.Appx. 466, 466-67 (5th Cir.2011).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *280 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Francisco Rosales
448 F. App'x 466 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Richard Higgins
739 F.3d 733 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 F. App'x 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rudolph-tatum-ca5-2015.