Case ID: f-appx_598/html/0281-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario PEREZ-RAZO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-40960
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 18, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
    Mario Perez-Razo, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Perez-Razo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Perez-Razo 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. 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.

The written judgment contains a clerical error. Perez-Razo pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted illegal reentry by a previously deported alien; the written judgment incorrectly identifies the nature of the offense as “[r]e-entry of a deported alien.” Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the error in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Figueroa-Noriega, 530 Fed.Appx. 382, 383 (5th Cir.2013); United States v. Rosales, 448 Fed.Appx. 466, 466-67 (5th Cir.2011). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.