United States v. Laday

Case: 22-30551 Document: 00516711982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30551
FILED
April 14, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Kentrell Laday,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:21-CR-178-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The attorney appointed to represent Kentrell Laday 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).
Laday has filed a response. To the extent that Laday attempts to raise claims
of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30551 Document: 00516711982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-30551
to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Laday’s claims; we therefore decline
to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United
States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Laday’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, there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The record
reflects that Laday pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a conviction
for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The judgment lists § 922 as the statute of conviction but
does not include subsection (g)(9), and it incorrectly describes the nature of
the offense as “Unlawful Transport Of Firearms, Etc. – Possession Of An
Unregistered Firearm With Forfeiture Allegation.” Accordingly, we
REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the
clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
2