Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0388-01.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. Araceli GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-40811
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 19, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Araceli Gonzalez, Tallahassee, FL, pro se.
    Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Araceli Gonzalez 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). Gonzalez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Gonzalez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment should be corrected to reflect the dismissal of count two of the indictment. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36.

Accordingly, the 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. This matter is REMANDED for correction of the clerical error pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.