United States v. Ronald Geddis

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12009

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RONALD GEDDIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00056-MSS-AEP-1

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12009

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Maribeth Wetzel, appointed counsel for Ronald Geddis in this appeal from an order granting a motion for return of property, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although a Rule 41(g) motion filed after the close of criminal proceedings is treated as a civil action in equity and falls under the district court’s equitable jurisdiction, see United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 974 (11th Cir. 2005), the framework established in Anders applies. See Dinkins v. State of Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269-70 (5th Cir. 1976) (applying Anders to a habeas appeal, which was considered a civil proceeding).

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 the orders of the district court are AFFIRMED.