USA v. David Dwinell

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant David Dwinell. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Kenneth S. Siegel is GRANTED. [7020040-2].(See 04/128/14 opinion)(FMH/SM/BBM)

Case: 13-11656

Date Filed: 04/18/2014

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11656
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00479-JDW-TBM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID DWINELL,
a.k.a. David J. Dwinell,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 18, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-11656

Date Filed: 04/18/2014

Page: 2 of 2

Kenneth S. Siegel, appointed counsel for David Dwinell in this direct
criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation and filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our
independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the
merit of the appeal is correct. We agree with Siegel that Dwinell’s guilty plea was
knowing and intelligent, see United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th
Cir. 2010), and find his sentence procedurally reasonable, see Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We also examined the issue,
missing from Siegel’s brief, of whether the district court plainly erred by imposing
a term of supervised release, and conclude it did not. See United States v.
Rodriguez, 627 F.3d 1372, 1380 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lejarde-Rada,
319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Because independent examination of the
entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED, and Dwinell’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2