Case: 21-50236 Document: 00516040175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 21-50236 October 4, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jeremy Atkinson, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 1:20-CR-217-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jeremy Atkinson has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Atkinson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant

* Per 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50236 Document: 00516040175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2021

No. 21-50236

portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

The district court was without jurisdiction, however, to enter the amended judgments during the pendency of this appeal. 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)). Thus, the original judgment stands. It contains a clerical error regarding the date on which the offense ended. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. After the conclusion of this appeal, the district court regains jurisdiction to amend the judgment to correct clerical errors under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous, the first and second amended judgments are VACATED for want of juris- diction, and the case is REMANDED for correction of the original judg- ments’ clerical error regarding the offense date. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Lucero, 755 F. App’x at 386−87.