
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudy GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11325 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 28, 2017
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Rudy Garcia, Pro Se
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rudy Garcia 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). Garcia has .filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review and dispense with further briefing. However, the' district court’s written judgment fails to reflect the dismissal of counts two, three, and four of the indictment. These counts were dismissed by the district court on the Government’s motion. Additionally, the written judgment incorrectly states that the offense of conviction involved “amphetamine” when in fact the offense involved “methamphetamine.” A remand to correct such clerical errors is proper. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, Garcia’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court with the instructions to correct the judgment to reflect the dismissal of counts two, three, and four of the indictment and to replace “amphetamine” with “methamphetamine.” Garcia’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     