Case: 22-50808     Document: 00516791809         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/19/2023




           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit


                                 No. 22-50808
                                                                           FILED
                                                                       June 19, 2023
                               Summary Calendar
                               ____________                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                      versus

   Christopher Teon Fults,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 6:19-CR-262-2
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
          The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Teon Fults has
   moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
   v. California, 

 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

   (5th Cir. 2011). Fults has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
   brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur
   with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
   appellate review and will therefore grant the motion to withdraw.
Case: 22-50808      Document: 00516791809          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/19/2023




                                    No. 22-50808


          There is, however, an issue with the restitution order. Although the
   total amount of restitution awarded is correct, the order has apparently
   omitted two victims and has included their loss amounts in the amounts
   awarded to two other victims. In unpublished opinions, this court has held
   that a defendant lacks standing to challenge “any error concerning to whom
   the restitution is to be paid” where “no matter the ultimate recipient, [the
   defendant] remains liable for paying the same amount,” United States v.
   Berry, 

, 237 (5th Cir. 2019), and has held that such an error
   may be corrected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, United States
   v. Crawley, 

 (5th Cir. 2012). We adopt the
   conclusions of these unpublished opinions and hold that Fults’s restitution
   order does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal because he is liable for
   the same restitution amount regardless of the ultimate recipients.
          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. We REMAND for the limited
   purpose of correction of the judgment concerning the designation of the
   restitution payees and the allocation of restitution among the payees. See
   Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.




                                             2