*1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[*]

The attorney appointed to represent David Manning 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). Manning 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. *2 Case: 16-51189 Document: 00514018326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2017

No. 16-51189

Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Manning pleaded guilty to attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, but it incorrectly lists the applicable statutory provisions as 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) rather than 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. This matter is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 36.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.