USA v. Sean Griss

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-40083 Dismissed as Frivolous and Remanded] Judge: CDK, Judge: JES, Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 08/30/2017 for Appellant Sean Luke Griss; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Scott Andrew Martin [8471283-2] [17-40083]

Case: 17-40083

Document: 00514108784

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/09/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-40083
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SEAN LUKE GRISS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:16-CR-707-1
Before KING, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sean Luke Griss
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). Griss 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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-40083

Document: 00514108784

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/09/2017

No. 17-40083
appellate review.

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 note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written judgment.
As a special condition of supervised release, the district court orally ordered
that Griss “shall participate in a drug treatment and alcohol abuse program as
required” pursuant to the provisions of the Southern District of Texas.
However, the written judgment includes outdated language stating that Griss
“shall participate [in such treatment] as instructed and as deemed necessary
by the probation officer.” At the time of Griss’s sentencing, the Southern
District of Texas had modified the special condition to remove the “as deemed
necessary” language, which had been found to be ambiguous. See United
States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564, 567-68 (5th Cir. 2016). The inclusion of the
outdated phraseology in the judgment is an apparent clerical error.
Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written
judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See
United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 372 (5th Cir. 2003).

2