USA v. Haynes

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 24, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-11221
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00215-WS-C-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICE HAYNES,
a.k.a. Mauricio Livingston,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 24, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

Arthur J. Madden, III, appointed counsel for Maurice Haynes, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent
review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merits
of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record
reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED,
and Haynes’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. This case is
REMANDED to the district court, however, with instructions to correct a clerical
error in the written judgment. See United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247, 1251-53
(11th Cir. 1999) (remanding for the purpose of correcting clerical error in the
defendant’s judgment). Rather than indicating that Haynes pled guilty, the
judgment should indicate that Haynes was found guilty by a jury after pleading not
guilty.
2

-- 2 of 2 --