USA v. Fults, No. 22-50808 (5th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

The attorney appointed to represent Defendant 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). Defendant did not file a response.

The Fifth Circuit granted the motion to withdraw. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The court wrote that consistent with Crawley, it holds that Defendant’s restitution order does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal because he is liable for the same restitution amount regardless of the ultimate recipients.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 19, 2023.

Download PDF

Case: 22-50808 Document: 00516797119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 REVISED 06/22/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 22-50808 Summary Calendar ____________ June 19, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Christopher Teon Fults, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:19-CR-262-2 ______________________________ Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Teon Fults 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). Fults 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 and will therefore grant the motion to withdraw. Case: 22-50808 Document: 00516797119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 No. 22-50808 The court, however, sua sponte noticed an error in the restitution order. Although the total amount of restitution awarded is correct, the order has apparently omitted two victims and has included their loss amounts in the amounts awarded to two other victims. In an unpublished opinion, this court has held that such an error may be corrected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, United States v. Crawley, 463 F. App’x 418, 420-22 (5th Cir. 2012). Consistent with Crawley, we hold that Fults’s restitution order does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal because he is liable for the same restitution amount regardless of the ultimate recipients. 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 REMAND for the limited purpose of correction of the judgment concerning the designation of the restitution payees and the allocation of restitution among the payees. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. 2

Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal. The court remanded for the limited purpose of correction of the judgment concerning the designation of the restitution payees and the allocation of restitution among the payees.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.