United States v. Guadalupe Ponte

Opinion

Case: 17-30882 Document: 00514525387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 17-30882 FILED Summary Calendar June 22, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE PONTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:17-CR-23-2

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Guadalupe Ponte 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). Ponte has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ponte’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30882 Document: 00514525387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2018

No. 17-30882

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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. We note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written judgment. Ponte pleaded guilty to the first count in the indictment, which charged her with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. The written judgment does not accurately describe that charged offense or statute. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Ulloa-Osorio, 637 F. App’x 142, 143 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rosales, 448 F. App’x 466, 466-67 (5th Cir. 2011).