
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Severiano V. SANTIBANEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40405 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed April 26, 2017
    
      Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-, Appellee
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Severiano V. Santibanez 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Santibanez has filed an untimely response, which we construe as a motion for leave to file an out-of-time response and GRANT.

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Santibanez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims 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 re-fleeted therein, as well as Santibanez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 6th Cíe, R. 42.2.

The record reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. Although the judgment refers to the offense of conviction as conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, the record reflects that Santibanez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule, of Criminal Procedure 36. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     