Case ID: f-appx_563/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David DWINELL, a.k.a. David J. Dwinell, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-11656
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 18, 2014.
    Peter J. Sholl, Stacie B. Harris, Suzanne C. Nebesky, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Kenneth S. Siegel, Kenneth S. Siegel, PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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.