Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-12705/USCOURTS-ca11-23-12705-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clayton Everett Colborn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12705

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLAYTON EVERETT COLBORN, 

a.k.a. Jason Rich,

a.k.a. Jason,

a.k.a. Clay,

a.k.a. Clayay,

Defendant-Appellant.

USCA11 Case: 23-12705 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12705

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00163-MSS-CPT-1

____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas A. Burns, appointed counsel for Clayton Everett 

Colborn in this direct criminal appeal, filed a motion to withdraw 

on appeal, supported by a brief prepared under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967). On September 30, 2024, the court entered an 

order denying Burns’s motion, having identified an issue of arguable merit as to the district court’s failure to orally describe standard 

conditions of supervised release included in the final judgment. 

The September 30 order stated

Our review of the record . . . reveals at least one issue 

of arguable merit: whether the district court erred by 

including conditions of supervised release in its written judgment but not its oral sentence, see United 

States v. Rodriguez, 75 F.4th 1231, 1246–49 (11th Cir. 

2023).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

DENIED, and he is DIRECTED to file a merits brief 

that addresses the issue presented above. Counsel is 

further directed to re-examine the record and present 

USCA11 Case: 23-12705 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 2 of 3
23-12705 Opinion of the Court 3

any other issues that counsel deems appropriate for 

inclusion.

Burns now moves for reconsideration of this Court’s September 30 order, in light of two opinions published by this Court 

on October 3, 2024—United States v. Hayden, 119 F.4th 832 (11th 

Cir. 2024), and United States v. Read, 118 F.4th 1317 (11th Cir. 2024). 

Applying Hayden and Read to Colborn’s case, Burns argues that 

Colborn and his counsel were on notice of the mandatory and 

standard conditions because they were publicly available on the 

district court’s website and in the relevant sentencing guidelines. 

Here, Burns’s motion warrants reconsideration of this 

Court’s September 30 order because following Hayden and Read, 

there is no longer any issue of arguable merit regarding whether 

the district court violated Colborn’s due process rights in pronouncement of the standard conditions of supervised release. Accordingly, Burns’s motion for reconsideration and his Anders motion to withdraw are GRANTED, and Colborn’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-12705 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 3 of 3