Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel ESTRADA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 687 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 16-51046 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel ESTRADA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel ESTRADA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-51046 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 25, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Joel Estrada-Fernandez, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joel Estrada-Fernandez 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). Estrada-Fernandez 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.
Notwithstanding that determination, we note a clerical error in the judgment. At sentencing, the district court agreed to recommend that Estrada-Fernandez be placed in a facility in Post, Texas. The judgment does not contain this recommendation.
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 case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.