United States v. Vicki Stark-Fitts

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2020
• Docket: 19-40636
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-40636 Document: 00515395598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2020

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

FILED April 27, 2020 No. 19-40636 Lyle W. Cayce Conference Calendar Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICKI STARK-FITTS, also known as Sealed4,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-119-4

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Vicki Stark-Fitts 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). Stark-Fitts 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-40636 Document: 00515395598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2020

No. 19-40636

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. We note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written amended judgment. At the sentencing hearing, the Government moved to dismiss the remaining counts of the previous indictments. The amended judgment lists the indictment, first superseding indictment, and second superseding indictment, but it omits the checkmark on the box next to the word “are” before the word “dismissed.” 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. Ulloa-Osorio, 637 F. App’x 142, 143 (5th Cir. 2016).