USA v. Cedric Butts

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 18-14935
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00006-LJA-TQL-15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CEDRIC BUTTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(January 15, 2020)
Before MARTIN, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Je’Nita Lane, appointed counsel for Cedric Butts in this direct criminal
appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Butts and filed a
Case: 18-14935 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 1 of 2

2

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our
independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the
merit of the appeal is correct.
As part of Butts’s plea agreement, he agreed to “waive[] any right to appeal
or other collateral review of [his] sentence in any court.” Notwithstanding this
language in Butts’s plea agreement, the court advised him as follows during his
plea colloquy: “[I]f you believe you received constitutionally ineffective assistance
of counsel, you’ll [] be able to appeal in that circumstance.” A waiver is
unenforceable if the district court’s explanation of the waiver was “confusing”
such that the defendant would not have understood the waiver’s “full significance.”
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 1993).
Nevertheless, and regardless of the appeal waiver, our independent
examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit on appeal. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, and Butts’s conviction and sentence
are AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-14935 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 2 of 2