Court Opinion

ID: 9351796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 19:00:42.732211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:00.441233
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-13505    Document: 98-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 19-13505
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       GREGORY THOMAS APICELLA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00049-SPC-NPM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-13505     Document: 98-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                19-13505

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              David Mengers, appointed counsel for Gregory Apicella in
       this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further
       representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders
       v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the
       record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the
       appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record
       reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw
       is GRANTED, and Apicella’s convictions and sentences are
       AFFIRMED. Apicella’s motion for new counsel and motion for re-
       consideration of the prior order denying his motion to discharge
       counsel are DENIED AS MOOT.