Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Isaac ENCINAS, also known as Gordo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-17
Citations: 467 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 11-50530
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Isaac ENCINAS, also known as Gordo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Isaac ENCINAS, also known as Gordo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50530
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leonard Christopher Morales, Counsel, Law Office of Leonard Morales, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Isaac Encinas 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). Encinas 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 pres ents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment should be corrected to reflect that Encinas pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams, not 500 kilograms, or more of methamphetamine.
Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED for correction of the clerical error pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.