United States v. Laday

Case: 22-30551 Document: 00516711982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit No. 22-30551

FILED April 14, 2023

Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Kentrell Laday,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:21-CR-178-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

The attorney appointed to represent Kentrell Laday 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). Laday has filed a response. To the extent that Laday attempts to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed

Case: 22-30551 Document: 00516711982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2023

No. 22-30551 to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Laday’s claims; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Laday’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.

However, there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The record reflects that Laday pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The judgment lists § 922 as the statute of conviction but does not include subsection (g)(9), and it incorrectly describes the nature of the offense as “Unlawful Transport Of Firearms, Etc. – Possession Of An Unregistered Firearm With Forfeiture Allegation.” Accordingly, we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.