Court Opinion

ID: 4154719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-22 18:00:46.670363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:48.183191
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-40874      Document: 00513921725         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/22/2017

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 16-40874                                 FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                         March 22, 2017
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIA ISABEL MARTINEZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:15-CR-1823-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Maria Isabel
Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632
F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez 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

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-40874    Document: 00513921725     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/22/2017

                                 No. 16-40874

issue for appellate review. However, we note that the judgment incorrectly
refers to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(iii), instead of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), as
correctly set forth in the superseding indictment to which Martinez pleaded
guilty. 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. This case is REMANDED to the district
court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment.

                                       2