UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gracielo GARDEA-CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant, 326 F. App'x 316

PER CURIAM: The attorney appointed to represent Gracielo Gardea-Carrasco 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). Gardea-Carrasco has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, and his motion challenges his sentence and the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his sentencing proceeding.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Gardea-Carrasco’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Gardea-Carrasco’s motion discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

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. Gardea-Carrasco’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. The written judgment reflects that Gardea-Carrasco was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in excess of 1,000 kilograms. Gardea-Carrasco pleaded guilty, however, to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in excess of only 100 kilograms.

This matter is REMANDED for correction of the clerical error pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.