Case: 20-20022 Document: 00515813947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 8, 2021 No. 20-20022 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ignacio Andrade-Lopez, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-177-1

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Ignacio Andrade-Lopez 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). Andrade-Lopez has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-20022 Document: 00515813947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2021

No. 20-20022

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. This appeal arises after our court previously remanded the case for resentencing.

United States v. Andrade-Lopez, 772 F. App’x 179 (5th Cir. 2019). After remand, an amended judgment was issued in the defendant’s Southern District of Texas case. Based on a new judgment form, that amended judgment added two “Standard Conditions” listed as Nos. 14 and 15 relating to defendants who owe restitution or other financial obligations. But Andrade-Lopez did not incur any monetary penalties in his Southern District of Texas case (the court even remitted the special assessment). As a result, we MODIFY the amended judgment to STRIKE Mandatory Condition #14 and #15.

We otherwise 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 further appeal (beyond the modification we have ordered) is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.