Court Opinion

ID: 9372434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 17:00:35.038282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.454317
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13498    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13498
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JIHAD MUHAMMAD ALI,
       a.k.a. Abu Dujanah,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20109-JLK-1
USCA11 Case: 21-13498     Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-13498

                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Mark C. Katzef, appointed counsel for Jihad Muhammad Ali
       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
       entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit
       of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the
       entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion
       to withdraw is GRANTED and Ali’s conviction and sentence are
       AFFIRMED in part. However, because the district court’s oral pro-
       nouncement at sentencing did not require Ali to undergo mental
       health treatment while on supervised release, it differed from the
       written judgment, which did include such a requirement. Accord-
       ingly, we VACATE in part and REMAND the case for the limited
       purpose of allowing the district court to correct the record and en-
       ter a judgment consistent with the oral pronouncement. See
       United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000).