Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20271/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20271-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Ulloa-Osorio
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20271

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO ULLOA-OSORIO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-348-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfredo UlloaOsorio 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). Ulloa-Osorio has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Ulloa-Osorio’s

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20271 Document: 00513386465 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2016
No. 15-20271

2

appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea 

agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the 

need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. 

Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. 

Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent 

review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 

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.

We note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written judgment. 

The Government agreed to dismiss any remaining counts of the indictment in 

exchange for Ulloa-Osorio’s plea to Count One. At the sentencing hearing, the 

Government moved to dismiss Count Two, and the district court granted the 

dismissal. However, the judgment does not include the dismissal of Count 

Two, an apparent clerical error. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of 

the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 n.16 

(5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rosales, 448 F. App’x 466, 466-67 (5th Cir.

2011).

 Case: 15-20271 Document: 00513386465 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2016