record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the amended judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Austin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Austin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Austin. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. * See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243-49, 128 S.Ct. 2559, 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008)
holding that in the absence of a government crossappeal an appellate court may not sua sponte correct a district court error if the correction would be to the defendants detriment holding in a case considering whether the trial court should have conducted a competency hearing sua sponte that an appellate court may only consider those facts which were before the court when the trial commenced holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff