United States v. Edgar Munoz-Munoz

Case: 12-40609 Document: 00512209933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2013
No. 12-40609
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDGAR ALEXIS MUNOZ-MUNOZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CR-966-3
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Edgar Alexis Munoz-Munoz 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). Munoz-Munoz 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.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40609 Document: 00512209933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2013
No. 12-40609
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment which stated the
offense of conviction as “Possession With Intent to Distribute a Quantity
Exceeding Fifty (50) Grams, that is, Approximately 1.3 Grams of
Methamphetamine,” where the indictment, the guilty plea, and the district court
at sentencing recognized the offense of conviction as possession with intent to
distribute a quantity exceeding 50 grams, that is, approximately, 1.3 kilograms,
of methamphetamine. The judgment should be corrected to reflect that Munoz-
Munoz was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a quantity exceeding
50 grams, that is, approximately, 1.3 kilograms, of methamphetamine. 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. This matter is REMANDED for correction
of the clerical error pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
2