USA v. Gonzalo Hernandez-Alamilla
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50988 Dismissed as Frivolous and Remanded] Judge: CDK, Judge: JWE, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 09/07/2017 for Appellant Gonzalo Hernandez-Alamilla; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Kimberly S. Keller [8463615-2] [16-50988]
Date Filed: 08/17/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
August 17, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
GONZALO HERNANDEZ-ALAMILLA, also known as Gonzalo Hernandez,
also known as Gonzalo Bryan Hernandez, also known as Gonzalo Alamilla,
also known as Gonzalo Almailla-Hernandez, also known as Chaka,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-215-1
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Gonzalo Hernandez-Alamilla 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). Hernandez-Alamilla has not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 08/17/2017
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous
issue for appellate review.
Nevertheless, counsel asserts that there is a clerical error in the written
judgment because it does not include “Aiding and Abetting” in the description
of the nature of the offense, nor does it include “18 U.S.C. § 2” as a violated
statutory provision. Even without the inclusion of “Aiding and Abetting,” the
judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, and thus this omission
need not be corrected. See United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 348 (5th
Cir. 2008). However, it will not prejudice the Government if the district court
corrects the judgment on remand to include “18 U.S.C. § 2” in the list of violated
provisions. 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 add “18 U.S.C. § 2”
to the list of violated statutory provisions. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 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?