From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Cladek

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Mar 31, 2014
561 F. App'x 837 (11th Cir. 2014)

Summary

noting insufficiency of record to review counsel's effectiveness as raised in response to Anders brief

Summary of this case from United States v. Plumadore

Opinion

No. 13-13728 D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00277-TJC-TEM-1

03-31-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LYDIA I. CLADEK, Defendant-Appellant.


[DO NOT PUBLISH]


Non-Argument Calendar


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Lydia Cladek appeals the district court's denial of her pro se Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 33 motion for a new trial. Maurice Grant, II, appointed counsel for Cladek, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant in this appeal and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Although Cladek argued in her Rule 33 motion and in response to Grant's Anders motion that counsel was ineffective, the record in this case is insufficient to review counsel's effectiveness. See United States v. Franklin, 694 F.3d 1, 8-9 (11th Cir. 2012). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should usually be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2013).

Because our independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the denial of Cladek's Rule 33 motion for a new trial is AFFIRMED. In addition, Cladek's pro se request for new counsel in this appeal is DENIED as moot, and Cladek's various other requests in this appeal for relief, also filed pro se, are DENIED.


Summaries of

United States v. Cladek

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Mar 31, 2014
561 F. App'x 837 (11th Cir. 2014)

noting insufficiency of record to review counsel's effectiveness as raised in response to Anders brief

Summary of this case from United States v. Plumadore

declining to review district court's denial of a motion for new trial and stating that "[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel should usually be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion."

Summary of this case from United States v. Miller
Case details for

United States v. Cladek

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LYDIA I. CLADEK…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 31, 2014

Citations

561 F. App'x 837 (11th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

United States v. Plumadore

See, E.g., United States v. Edwards, 493 Fed. App'x 1001 (11th Cir. 2012) (granting motion to withdraw under…

United States v. Miller

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit, in declining to review a district court's denial of a motion for new trial on…