Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julian HERNANDEZ-MOTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 709 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 17-40581 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julian HERNANDEZ-MOTA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julian HERNANDEZ-MOTA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40581 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 19, 2018
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Julian Hernandez-Mota, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julian Hernandez-Mota 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). Hernandez-Mota 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. Hernandez-Mota pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry of a deported alien, while the written judgment states that his offense is reentry of a deported alien. The offense of attempted illegal reentry is a separate and distinct offense from the other means of committing a violation of the illegal reentry statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326; United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 2000).
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 the 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.