USA v. David Dwinell


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)

Download PDF
Case: 13-11656 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-11656 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?