Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Buddy Wayne ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-19
Citations: 512 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 11-10986
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Buddy Wayne ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Buddy Wayne ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10986
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 19, 2013.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Buddy Wayne Anderson, Minersville, PA, pro se.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Buddy Wayne Anderson 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). Anderson has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Anderson's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Specifically, while the magistrate judge and plea agreement incorrectly advised Anderson concerning the relevant statutory minimum and maximum terms, the district court informed Anderson of the correct sentencing terms and provided him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea during the sentencing hearing. Anderson persisted in pleading guilty, however, thereby confirming the voluntariness of his plea and demonstrating that the misstatement concerning the sentencing terms did not affect his decision. Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.