United States v. Ken Stevenson , 710 F. App'x 620 ( 2018 )

Case: 17-30478 Document: 00514340630 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-30478
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 7, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
KEN MICHELLE STEVENSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CR-309-2
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ken Michelle
Stevenson 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). Stevenson has not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-30478 Document: 00514340630 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2018
No. 17-30478
for appellate review. 1 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.
1Specifically, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Stevenson’s
motion to clarify his sentence. We do not read the district court’s order as addressing the
propriety of a nunc pro tunc designation, see BOP Program Statement 5160.05 at 5–6, nor
the potential merits of any claim Stevenson may have under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see generally
Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2010).
2