USA v. David Manning, No. 16-51189 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-51189 Document: 00514018326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-51189 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID MANNING, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:16-CR-103-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent David Manning 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). Manning 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. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-51189 Document: 00514018326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 No. 16-51189 Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Manning pleaded guilty to attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, but it incorrectly lists the applicable statutory provisions as 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) rather than 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). 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. This matter 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.