United States v. Garrett

Case: 21-10009 Document: 00516033260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 28, 2021
No. 21-10009 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Anthony Tyrone Garrett,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-224-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Anthony Tyrone Garrett appeals his 24-month
term of imprisonment. He contends that the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised
release.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 21-10009 Document: 00516033260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2021
No. 21-10009
The Western District of Texas sentenced Garrett, but transferred
jurisdiction to the Northern District of Texas. Garrett relies on one sentence
in the text of the transfer order: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant
to 18 USC § 3605, the jurisdiction of the probationer or supervised releasee
named above be transferred with the records of this Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division, upon that Court’s
order of acceptance of jurisdiction.” (emphasis added).
Even Garrett recognizes that the reference to the Southern District
“was most likely an error and oversight.” He nevertheless contends that the
typographical error voids the order.
The record clarifies, however, that the appearance of the wrong
district on the transfer order was a clerical error. Cf. United States v. Cooper,
979 F.3d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 2020) (defining clerical error for purposes of
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1715 (2021).
For example: (1) the same order identified the Northern District as the
transferee court in the caption; (2) Garrett did not object to the supervision
of his release in the Northern District; and (3) nothing in the record indicates
that the parties or the court understood the order to transfer Garrett to the
Southern District. Despite the clerical error, the record demonstrates that
the order transferred jurisdiction to the Northern District of Texas before the
court revoked Garrett’s supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3605; United
States v. Fernandez, 379 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 2004).
Garrett next contends that the district court violated his right to a jury
trial by applying the mandatory revocation provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g).
As he concedes, however, this claim is foreclosed by our precedent. See
United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141
S. Ct. 1439 (2021).
AFFIRMED.
2