USA v. Gonzalez-Salazar, No. 23-40226 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-40226 Document: 00516915356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED October 2, 2023 No. 23-40226 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose Antonio Gonzalez-Salazar, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22-CR-1164-1 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio Gonzalez-Salazar 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-Salazar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40226 Document: 00516915356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2023 No. 23-40226 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. However, we note that the judgment contains a clerical error in that it lists the incorrect title of the United States Code under which the offense of conviction is provided. This offense falls under Title 8 of the United States Code, not Title 18, and thus the judgment should identify the statute of conviction as 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). 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 purposed of correcting the judgment to list the correct statute of conviction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. 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.