USA v. Solomon Devoil, No. 19-30749 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-30749 Document: 00515424821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-30749 Conference Calendar May 21, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SOLOMON LEWIS DEVOIL, also known as Solomon Louis Devall, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:15-CR-108-1 Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Solomon Lewis Devoil 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). Devoil 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-30749 Document: 00515424821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 No. 19-30749 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment. The judgment erroneously states that Devoil admitted his guilt to the listed violations of supervised release although the district court found the violations had occurred after Devoil denied guilt. 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; United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979). 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.