The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Rojo, Jr., 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). Rojo 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 alternative motion for a hearing is DENIED.

The record reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Although the record shows that the district court orally imposed and intended to impose a total fine of $2,000, the written judgment also states that a $2,000 fine was “imposed as to each of Counts 1, 3, and 4” to reach the total fine of $2,000. The case is therefore REMANDED for the correction of this clerical error. Fed. R.Crim. P. 36.