Case: 11-40811 Document: 00511792142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 19, 2012
No. 11-40811
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARACELI GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:10-CR-1699-3
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Araceli Gonzalez 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).
Gonzalez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration at this time of Gonzalez’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the
claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40811 Document: 00511792142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2012
No. 11-40811
to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.
Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of
the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate
review.
The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment
should be corrected to reflect the dismissal of count two of the indictment. See
FED. R. CRIM. P. 36.
Accordingly, the 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