
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Manuel Alcazar ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-11148
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 11, 2014.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Monica F. Markley, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, She-rylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant ■Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Luis Manuel Alcazar Rojas, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Manuel Alcazar Rojas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Alca-zar Rojas 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. 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 record, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. Alcazar Rojas was indicted for and pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2252(a)(2). However, the written judgment lists the statutes of conviction as “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.” 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. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 n. 16 (5th Cir.), cert. denied (May 19, 2014) (No. 13-9678); United States v. Rosales, 448 Fed.Appx. 466, 466-67 (5th Cir.2011). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     