USA v. Jonathan Bergren, No. 14-13319 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-13319 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-13319 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00463-CEH-TBM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNATHAN BERGREN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 20, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-13319 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 2 of 2 Ron Smith, appointed counsel for Johnathan Bergren in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bergren’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. However, the judgment of conviction contains a clerical error, identifying Bergren’s conviction as a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1349, instead of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as charged in Count One of the superseding indictment. Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED and REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting this clerical error. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
