United States v. Gabriel Rangel

Opinion

Case: 17-50384 Document: 00514408291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

No. 17-50384 Fifth Circuit

FILED Summary Calendar March 29, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GABRIEL RANGEL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:16-CR-35-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rangel 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). Rangel 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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50384 Document: 00514408291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2018

No. 17-50384

appellate review. See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Our review reveals clerical errors in the written judgment concerning the description of Rangel’s offense and the applicable statutory provisions. Specifically, the judgment reflects that Rangel was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 rather than for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). 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 the limited purpose of correcting the clerical errors in the judgment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979).