USA v. Ashanti Roundtree

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-12651
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00555-SCB-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ASHANTI ROUNDTREE,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 15, 2020)
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Burns, appointed counsel for Ashanti Roundtree in this direct
Case: 19-12651 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 1 of 2

2

criminal appeal, filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief
prepared under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We denied Burns’s
motion based on potential violations of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191,
2195 (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.
Case: 19-12651 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 2 of 2