United States v. Solomon Devoil

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2020
• Docket: 19-30749
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-30749 Document: 00515424821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

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

No. 19-30749 FILED Conference Calendar May 21, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SOLOMON LEWIS DEVOIL, also known as Solomon Louis Devall,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:15-CR-108-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Solomon Lewis Devoil has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Devoil has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-30749 Document: 00515424821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

No. 19-30749

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment. The judgment erroneously states that Devoil admitted his guilt to the listed violations of supervised release although the district court found the violations had occurred after Devoil denied guilt. 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. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979).