United States v. Robinson ( 2022 )

Case: 22-30004 Document: 00516541926 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30004
FILED
consolidated with
November 10, 2022
Nos. 22-30005, 22-30014
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Clarence Robinson, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30011
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Clarence Robinson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC Nos. 3:20-CR-25-1, 3:20-CR-26-1, 3:94-CR-26-1, 3:20-CR-24-1
Case: 22-30004 Document: 00516541926 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2022
No. 22-30004
c/w Nos. 22-30005, 22-30014, 22-30011
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Clarence
Robinson, Jr., 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). Robinson has not filed a response. We
have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the records
reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals
present 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 APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
There is a clerical error in the written judgment in No. 22-30004.
Robinson was sentenced to a total of 36 months of imprisonment, but the
judgment in No. 22-30004 incorrectly states that his total term of
imprisonment is 30 months. This is a purely clerical error that “did not
substantively alter” the sentence. United States v. Spencer, 513 F.3d 490, 492
(5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we REMAND No. 22-30004 for the limited
purpose of correcting that error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2