USA v. Edgar Munoz-Munoz
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-40609 Dismissed as frivolous ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JLD , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 05/07/2013 for Appellant Edgar Alexis Munoz-Munoz; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Seth Kretzer [7206116-2] [12-40609]
Date Filed: 04/16/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
April 16, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EDGAR ALEXIS MUNOZ-MUNOZ,
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.
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
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 04/16/2013
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 MunozMunoz 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?