USA v. Gabriel Rangel, No. 17-50385 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-50385 Document: 00514403592 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50385 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 27, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GABRIEL RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:16-CR-68-5 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Gabriel Rangel 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). Rangel 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 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50385 Document: 00514403592 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2018 No. 17-50385 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment concerning the statutory provision applicable to Rangel’s instant drug conspiracy offense. Specifically, the judgment reflects that Rangel was convicted and sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and omits any reference to 21 U.S.C. § 846, the applicable conspiracy statute. 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.