United States v. Jonathan Budowski

<p>USCA11 Case: 19-13967 Date Filed: 10/27/2020 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13967 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00204-SDM-SPF-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JONATHAN BUDOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (October 27, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 19-13967 Date Filed: 10/27/2020 Page: 2 of 2 Jason Mayberry moved to withdraw from further representation of Jonathan Budowski in his direct criminal appeal. In support of that motion, Mayberry filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Budowski responded, citing to one alleged non-frivolous ground for appeal. He also requested an extension to file a fuller response once the Covid-19 lockdown has ended at FCI Jesup and he once again has access to a law library. We granted Budowski two extensions, but he did not file another response by the deadline. The Anders procedure is not constitutionally compelled, rather it safeguards “the constitutional right to appellate counsel announced in Douglas.” Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 273 (2000). To satisfy any constitutional concerns, Anders requires that the reviewing court 1. “satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal”; and 2. determine, based on an independent review of the record, that “counsel has correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988). Here, Mayberry properly filed an Anders brief citing to all relevant portions of the record. We then engaged in an independent review of the entire record and agree with counsel’s assessment that any appeal would be frivolous. Accordingly, the Anders requirements have been satisfied and counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Budowski’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. 2 19-13967 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ca11 11th Cir. United States v. Jonathan Budowski 27 October 2020 NEW Unpublished ca5259875ba4000c2c5d71415724e4616f3dd9c6</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4800533/united-states-v-jonathan-budowski/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid United States v. Jonathan Budowski in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from United States v. Jonathan Budowski. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
United States v. Jonathan Budowski is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.


>