Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Naesha C. LOW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 543 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 12-31199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Naesha C. LOW, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Naesha C. LOW, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-31199
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2013.
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen H. Shapiro, Jefferson, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Naesha C. Low 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). Low 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.
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment should be corrected to reflect that Low pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846. See Fed.R.CRIm.P. 36.
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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.