USA v. Baquavious Rivers, No. 19-10090 (5th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 19, 2019.

Download PDF

Case: 19-10090 Document: 00515203471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-10090 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 18, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. BAQUAVIOUS RIVERS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CR-460-10 Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Baquavious Rivers 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). Rivers 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-10090 Document: 00515203471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2019 No. 19-10090 Our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment concerning the indictment to which Rivers pleaded guilty. The judgment erroneously states that Rivers pleaded guilty to Count One of “the indictment filed on September 12, 2017,” rather than Count One of the second superseding indictment filed January 9, 2018. 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.