USA v. Nattu Julian Valladarez, No. 09-12554 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 2, 2011.
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 09-12554 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCTOBER 19, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-00145-CR-1-WSD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NATTU JULIAN VALLADAREZ, a.k.a. Cholo, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez, a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez-Perez, JOSE ALFREDO CRUZ, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (October 19, 2010) Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Robert Alan Glickman, appointed counsel for Nattu Julian Valladarez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Nevertheless, Valladarez s judgment indicated that he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956(B)(i) and (B)(ii). Those sections, however, do not exist. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Instead, it appears that the district court committed a clerical error and intended to cite § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(ii). Accordingly, we affirm Valladarez s convictions and sentences, but we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the court to correct the clerical error in Valladarez s judgment. See United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247, 1251-53 (11th Cir. 1999) (vacating and remanding for the limited purpose of correcting clerical error in the defendant s judgment). AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
