Opinion
21-1637 21-2297
01-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AVERY SMARTT, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENNY BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Argued August 3, 2022
Argued April 27, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 18-CR-30138-NJR-01 Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Judge.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:17-CR-00700(1) Andrea R. Wood, Judge.
Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
ORDER
These unrelated criminal appeals were heard by separate panels and are resolved today in published opinions. But they share a common feature: the same attorney, Amir Mohabbat, was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, to represent the defendants on appeal. It should be clear from our opinions that we have serious concerns about counsel's conduct. In Benny Butler's case, Mohabbat raised arguments that are waived, inexcusably undeveloped, and frivolous on the merits. In Avery Smartt's case, his arguments are likewise inexcusably undeveloped and frivolous.
If an appointed attorney in a direct criminal appeal cannot formulate a nonfrivolous argument for review, then the proper course is to file an Anders brief and move to withdraw from the case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Mohabbat instead submitted badly deficient briefs pressing frivolous claims, tossing in a few case citations along the way, none of which support an argument for reversal and some of which are inapplicable, inaccurate, and/or misleading. For example, in Butler's case he twice cited a dissent-from our denial of rehearing en banc in United States v. Daoud, 989 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2021) (mem.)-without telling us that he was relying on a minority viewpoint.
There was more along these lines in yet another of Mohabbat's criminal appeals: United States v. Ocampo-Tellez (No. 21-2967, dismissed June 7, 2022). In that case he orally moved to dismiss the appeal during oral argument in response to the panel's questions.
This pattern of deficient work by a CJA lawyer is concerning. We considered sanctions but settled on a warning instead. This order-and our opinions in these cases-shall serve as a warning and a reminder to Mohabbat that he must heed his professional obligations. See Wegbreit v. Comm'r, 21 F.4th 959, 964 (7th Cir. 2021).