United States v. Nattu Julian Valladarez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12554 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 19, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00145-CR-1-WSD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATTU JULIAN VALLADAREZ,
a.k.a. Cholo,
a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez,
a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez-Perez,
JOSE ALFREDO CRUZ,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 19, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
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)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(1)(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.
2