USA v. Gilbert Garcia, No. 18-11348 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11348 Document: 00515180022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-11348 Conference Calendar FILED October 30, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GILBERT GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CR-287-1 Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Gilbert 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). Garcia 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 review. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-11348 Document: 00515180022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2019 No. 18-11348 Our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment concerning the subsections of the statute governing Garcia’s conviction on Count One of the indictment. The judgment erroneously states that Garcia was convicted under “21 U.S.C. §§ 841(A)(L), (B)(L)(C),” rather than “21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),” as is charged in Count One of the indictment. 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 the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979). 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.