Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnathan BERGREN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-20
Citations: 610 F. App'x 934
Docket Number: No. 14-13319
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnathan BERGREN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 934–934

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnathan BERGREN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-13319
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 20, 2015.
Susan Hollis Rothstein-Youakim, Natalie Hirt Adams, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Amanda Lynn Riedel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rosemary Cakmis, Craig L. Crawford, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Johnathan Ber-gren, Clearwater, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ron Smith, appointed counsel for Johnathan Bergren in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief 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 merit 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 Bergren's conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. However, the judgment of conviction contains a clerical error, identifying Bergren's conviction as a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1349, instead of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as charged in Count One of the superseding indictment. Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED and REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting this clerical error. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir.2006).