United States v. Idowu ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10113 Document: 00516887165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10113
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 7, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Victor Idowu,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-436-2
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The attorney appointed to represent Victor Idowu 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).
Idowu has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Idowu’s claim of ineffective assistance of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10113 Document: 00516887165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2023
No. 23-10113
counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
Idowu also seeks the appointment of substitute counsel, but his motion is
DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03
(5th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Idowu’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
However, the record reflects clerical errors in the written judgment.
First, although the written judgment was amended to correct the restitution
award, including to reduce the restitution amount to $508,840, Idowu’s
amended judgment still contains two references to the original erroneous
restitution amount of $1,167,228. Second, Idowu was indicted on a single
count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, but the record reflects
that he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Therefore, the
judgment should be amended to reflect that offense of conviction.
Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correction of these
clerical errors in the amended written judgment in accordance with Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
2