United States v. Walker ( 2022 )

Case: 20-30606 Document: 00516330544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 24, 2022
No. 20-30606
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Melvin Walker,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:17-CR-160-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Melvin Walker has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Walker has filed responses to counsel’s briefs. He also has filed a motion for
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-30606 Document: 00516330544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 20-30606
temporary leave seeking a limited remand to the district court, which is
DENIED.
We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Walker’s responses. It is dispositive that
the Government has declined to waive the untimeliness of Walker’s appeal.
See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016).
Thus, we concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R.
42.2.
We note, however, that the district court was without jurisdiction to
amend the judgment during the pendency of this appeal to correct a clerical
error regarding forfeiture. See United States v. Lucero, 755 F. App’x 384, 386-
87 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56,
58 (1982)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Thus, the original judgment stands. We
treat the district court’s January 16, 2020, amended judgment as an
indicative ruling. The amended judgment is VACATED for want of
jurisdiction, and the case is REMANDED so the district court may reenter
its amended judgment.
2