Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nattu Julian VALLADAREZ, a.k.a. Cholo, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez-Perez, Jose Alfredo Cruz, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-19
Citations: 400 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 09-12554
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nattu Julian VALLADAREZ, a.k.a. Cholo, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez-Perez, Jose Alfredo Cruz, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nattu Julian VALLADAREZ, a.k.a. Cholo, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez-Perez, Jose Alfredo Cruz, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 09-12554
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 19, 2010.
Sanford A. Wallack, Sanford A. Wallack, P.C., Robert Alan Glickman, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Jeffrey Davis, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Alan Glickman, appointed counsel for Nattu Julian Valladarez 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.
Nevertheless, Valladarez's judgment indicated that he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956(B)(i) and (B)(ii). Those sections, however, do not exist. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Instead, it appears that the district court committed a clerical error and intended to cite § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i) and (a)(l)(B)(ii). Accordingly, we affirm Valladarez's convictions and sentences, but we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the court to correct the clerical error in Valladarez's judgment. See United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247, 1251-53 (11th Cir.1999) (vacating and remanding for the limited purpose of correcting clerical error in the defendant's judgment).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.