UNITED STATES v. GARCIA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-02No. No. 20-10553

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded to the district court to correct the written judgment to include the aiding-and-abetting statute and to remove the copayment requirement from the conditions of supervised release to match the orally pronounced sentence.

Garcia's court-appointed appellate counsel sought permission to withdraw by filing an Anders brief, arguing the appeal lacked any viable issues for review. The court agreed that no nonfrivolous appellate issues existed and granted counsel's motion to withdraw. However, upon reviewing the record, the court identified two discrepancies between the written judgment and what the trial court actually imposed: the judgment failed to include a federal aiding-and-abetting statute that Garcia pleaded guilty to violating, and it incorrectly listed a monthly copayment obligation that the district judge had orally struck during sentencing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether appellate counsel could withdraw based on lack of nonfrivolous issues
Correction of clerical errors in sentencing judgment
Conformity between written judgment and oral pronouncement of sentence

Procedural posture

Garcia appealed his conviction and sentence, prompting his federal public defender to move for withdrawal under Anders and seek to dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Henry Garcia has moved for leave to 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). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsels brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsels assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

However, we have identified two clerical errors in the written judgment. Although Garcia pleaded guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, the written judgment does not list § 2 as a violated statutory provision. In addition, the written judgment includes, as part of Garcias special conditions of supervision, a requirement that he “contribute to the costs of [his participation in a program for the treatment of narcotic, drug, or alcohol dependency] (copayment) at a rate of at least $40.00 per month.” The district court struck the copayment requirement when orally pronouncing Garcias sentence.

Accordingly, counsels 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 case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reference § 2 in the list of violated statutory provisions and to conform with the orally pronounced conditions of supervised release. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.