Case: 17-41029 Document: 00514566627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41029 United States Court of Appeals Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit FILED July 23, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff−Appellee, versus ELIPDIO JORDAN-MALDONADO, Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 4:14-CR-91-12

Before JONES, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Elipdio Jordan-Maldonado has

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 17-41029 Document: 00514566627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2018

No. 17-41029 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). Jordan-Maldonado has filed a response. The record is not suffici- ently developed for us to make a fair evaluation of Jordan-Maldonado’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, so we decline to consider them without pre- judice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record, and Jordan-Maldonado’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, and counsel is excused from fur- ther responsibilities herein.

Our review does, however, reveal a clerical error in the judgment, which states that Jordan-Maldonado pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute cocaine. Instead, the record reflects that Jordan-Maldonado pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to dis- tribute cocaine; therefore, the word “manufacture” must be deleted from the description of the offense.

The remaining question is whether we should remand. Although we could do so, courts of appellate jurisdiction are permitted to “affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2106. See, e.g., United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 542 (5th Cir. 2018); No. 15-41034, United States v. Cabrera, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18470, at *3 (5th Cir. July 6, 2018) (per cur- iam) (unpublished). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED as MODIFIED to reflect that Jordan-Maldonado was convicted of, and sentenced for, conspire- acy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.