Case: 23-11033 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-11033 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 15, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Alexandro Mauricio Campos, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CR-215-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant Alexandro Mauricio Campos 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). Campos has filed a response and an incorporated motion to appoint substitute counsel, which is DENIED. See _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-11033 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2024

No. 23-11033

United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). To the extent that Campos seeks to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we pretermit those claims without prejudice to collateral review because the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of them. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Campos’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review but note a clerical error in the judgment. Although the record reflects that Campos pleaded guilty to counts one and three of the superseding indictment, the judgment states that he pleaded guilty to counts one and two.

Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the error in the judgment.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.