USA v. Sean Griss, No. 17-40083 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 However, the written judgment includes outdated language stating that Griss “shall participate [in such treatment] as instructed and as deemed necessary by the probation officer.”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 The inclusion of the outdated phraseology in the judgment is an apparent clerical error.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
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.
