Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12339/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damon Bellamy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 19-12199 & 19-12339

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00151-CEH-SPF-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAMON BELLAMY,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 10, 2020)

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Leduc, appointed counsel for Damon Bellamy in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Mr. Bellamy and has

USCA11 Case: 19-12339 Date Filed: 06/10/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that Mr. Leduc’s assessment of the relative merit 

of the appeal is correct. 

Putting aside the appeal waiver in Mr. Bellamy’s plea agreement, see Garza 

v. Idaho, 139 S.Ct. 738, 745 (2019) (explaining that the government can forego 

reliance on an appeal waiver), there are no arguable issues of law or fact. See McCoy 

v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n. 10 (1988). For example, 

although there may be an arguable issue relating to the district court’s attempted loss 

calculation, there is no indication that a proper calculation of attempted loss would 

lead to a figure of less than $3.5 million (the amount needed to trigger a lower 

advisory guideline range). In other words, any mistake the district court made with 

respect to attempted loss did not affect Mr. Bellamy’s advisory guidelines range. In 

addition, Mr. Leduc withdrew his objection to the district court basing restitution on 

relevant conduct occurring outside of the statute of limitations period. Cf. United 

States v. Dickerson, 370 F.3d 1330, 1342 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding, under the 

Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, that where a scheme is an element of an offense, 

a district court can use relevant conduct outside of the statute of limitations period 

to determine restitution). 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable 

issues of merit, Mr. Leduc’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Mr. Bellamy’s 

USCA11 Case: 19-12339 Date Filed: 06/10/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED AS MOOT, and Mr. 

Bellamy’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-12339 Date Filed: 06/10/2020 Page: 3 of 3