USA v. Randy Pittman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10251 Vacated and Remanded] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES. Mandate pull date is 10/19/2017 for Appellant Randy DeWayne Pittman; denying motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq. [8518871-2]; denying motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Randy DeWayne Pittman [8583202-2] [16-10251]

Case: 16-10251

Document: 00514174580

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/28/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-10251
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
September 28, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN,
Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-221-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Randy Pittman pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 16-10251

Document: 00514174580

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/28/2017

No. 16-10251
and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised
release (“SR”). The term of SR exceeds the statutory maximum term for Pittman’s offense, as the parties agree.

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2),

3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); United States v. Vera, 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008).
The judgment is therefore VACATED as to the term of SR, and this matter is
REMANDED to modify the sentence consistently with § 3583(b)(2).
To the extent that Pittman reurges the arguments he originally put forth
in his response to counsel’s now-withdrawn motion filed pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he does not have the right to hybrid representation or simultaneous representation by himself and counsel. See United
States v. Villafranca, 844 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1393
(2017). After the close of briefing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw at the
request of Pittman, and Pittman filed a motion to proceed pro se. Neither counsel nor Pittman has established a “conflict of interest or other most pressing
circumstances” warranting removal of counsel. FIFTH CIRCUIT PLAN UNDER
THE CJA,

§ 5B. The motions are therefore DENIED.

2