Skip to main content

UNITED STATES v. ROUNDTREE (2020)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashanti ROUNDTREE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-12651

Decided: May 15, 2020

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. Todd B. Grandy, U.S. Attorney Service - Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Ashanti Roundtree, Pro Se

Thomas Burns, appointed counsel for Ashanti Roundtree 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We denied Burns’s motion based on potential violations of Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019). Burns has now filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial in light of our decision in United States v. Moore, 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020) and for leave to file that motion out of time. Roundtree, pro se, has also filed a motion to appoint new counsel.

Burns submitted a response to Roundtree’s motion to appoint new counsel by letter dated April 14, 2020, and requested that the letter be filed ex parte because it contains confidential discussions of his work product and attorney-client communications. Burns’s letter is construed as a motion for leave to file his letter ex parte and is GRANTED. Burns’s letter will not appear on this Court’s public docket.

Burns’s motion to file out of time a motion for reconsideration of our denial of his Anders motion is GRANTED. Because independent review of the record reveals no issues of arguable merit regarding the Rehaif errors that could be raised on appeal, or any other issues of arguable merit, Burns’s motion for reconsideration and his motion to withdraw are also GRANTED. Roundtree’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED. Roundtree’s pro se motion to substitute counsel is therefore DENIED as moot.

PER CURIAM:

Copied to clipboard