USA v. Samuel Baker, No. 16-51087 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-51087 Document: 00514018137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-51087 Summary Calendar FILED June 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAMUEL EUGENE BAKER, also known as Samuel E. Baker, also known as Samuel Baker, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CR-933-1 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Eugene Baker 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). Baker has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-51087 Document: 00514018137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 No. 16-51087 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. However, there is a clerical error in the written judgment, which fails to reflect the dismissal of certain counts of the indictment. The record shows that Baker was convicted and sentenced on Count Four and that the remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. The amended judgment therefore should reflect that Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six of the indictment were dismissed on the Government’s motion. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. 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.