Court Opinion

ID: 9376451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 19:00:43.19887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.915699
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11981    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 03/02/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11981
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL DEXTER LITTLE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cr-00103-RBD-DCI-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11981     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/02/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11981

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Thomas Dale, appointed counsel for Michael Little in his di-
       rect criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further repre-
       sentation of Mr. Little and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Cali-
       fornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In his response to Mr. Dale’s motion,
       Mr. Little filed his own motion for substitution of counsel, assert-
       ing a breakdown in communication between himself and Mr. Dale.
              Because independent examination of the entire record re-
       veals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
       GRANTED, and Mr. Little’s convictions and sentences are
       AFFIRMED. Mr. Little’s motion for substitution of counsel is
       DENIED as moot. To the extent that Mr. Little asserts that Mr.
       Dale rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, he can raise such
       claims in a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.