USA v. Frank Flores, No. 17-20733 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-20733 Document: 00514649538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-20733 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 20, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANK FLORES, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-273-3 Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Frank Flores 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). Flores 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-20733 Document: 00514649538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2018 No. 17-20733 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. We note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment references 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), which is correct for Flores’s offense of possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The written judgment erroneously describes the nature of the offense as possession with intent to distribute 5 “kilograms” or more of methamphetamine. The word “kilograms” should be replaced with “grams” under Nature of Offense. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Hernandez, 719 F. App’x 395, (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Perez-Gonzalez, 294 F. App’x 854, 855 (5th Cir. 2008). 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.
