USA v. Lawrence, No. 22-10411 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-10411 Document: 00516529782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10411 Summary Calendar FILED November 1, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Deante Marqukeist Lawrence, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-212-1 Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Deante Marqukeist Lawrence 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). Lawrence has not filed a response. We have reviewed * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 22-10411 Document: 00516529782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022 No. 22-10411 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. 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. There is, however, a clerical error in the judgment. Lawrence was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), but the judgment incorrectly identifies the statutory penalty provision as § 924(a)(2). Accordingly, in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the written judgment. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 371-72 (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.