The attorney appointed to represent Carolyn Boehm-McCauley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental 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). Boehm-McCauley has filed a response and a supplemental response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Boehm-McCauley’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Any substantive challenge to the district court’s failure to orally pronounce a special condition of supervised release is barred by the valid appeal waiver in this case, and we discern no clerical error. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Slanina, 359 F.3d 356, 357-58 (5th Cir. 2004).

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.