Filed: Jun. 08, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 8, 2009 No. 08-51171 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALEXIS MORGANFIELD Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-3 Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Alexis Morganfield has move
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 8, 2009 No. 08-51171 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALEXIS MORGANFIELD Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-3 Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Alexis Morganfield has moved..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 8, 2009
No. 08-51171
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ALEXIS MORGANFIELD
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-3
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Alexis Morganfield has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Morganfield has filed a response. Our independent review
of the record, counsel’s brief, and Morganfield’s response discloses no
nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. See F ED. R. C RIM.
P. 36. The restitution order states the amount of restitution as both
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-51171
“$387,405.87” and “$387,406.87.” The judgment should be amended to reflect
that the amount of restitution is $387,406.87, which is the total of the victims’
individual restitution awards. The judgment’s reference to “$387,405.87” should
be deleted and replaced with “$387,406.87.”
Accordingly, counsel’s 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. This matter is REMANDED for correction
of the clerical error pursuant to F ED. R. C RIM. P. 36. Morganfield’s pro se motion
for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2