Case: 20-40792 Document: 00515893732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-40792 June 9, 2021
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jesus Erasmo Alaniz-Garcia,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:18-CR-120-4
Before King, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Erasmo
Alaniz-Garcia 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). Alaniz-Garcia has not filed a response.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40792 Document: 00515893732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-40792
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.
However, we have identified a clerical error in the written judgment.
Although the district court’s orally pronounced sentence ordered that the
eight-month revocation sentence was as to each of the two original counts of
conviction and that the eight months would be served concurrently as to both
of those counts, the written judgment does not specifically state that. The
district court’s intention can be inferred in the written judgment based on the
fact that after stating that the sentence is a total term of eight months of
imprisonment, the following text states that the imprisonment term consists
of “4 MONTHS as to each of Counts 1 and 7 to run consecutively to and 4
MONTHS as to each of Counts 1 and 7 to run concurrently with” the term
of imprisonment imposed for the new illegal reentry sentence. Out of an
abundance of caution, we ORDER the district court to issue a clarifying
correction of the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to
state the oral pronouncement explicitly in the written judgment.
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. The case is REMANDED to the
district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to conform
with the orally pronounced sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
2