United States v. Jeffrey Aronofsky ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •         USCA11 Case: 21-10500    Date Filed: 08/26/2021    Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 21-10500
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cr-00240-WWB-GJK-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JEFFREY ARONOFSKY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (August 26, 2021)
    Before WILSON, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    USCA11 Case: 21-10500      Date Filed: 08/26/2021   Page: 2 of 3
    Stephen J. Langs, appointed counsel for Jeffrey Aronofsky in this direct
    criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
    appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    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 Aronofsky’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
    2
    USCA11 Case: 21-10500        Date Filed: 08/26/2021   Page: 3 of 3
    JORDAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
    With respect, I dissent. I would not allow counsel to withdraw and would not
    affirm under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    The district court sentenced Mr. Aronofsky to 20 years in prison, which was
    about 2 ½ years above the top of the advisory guideline range. Anders is concerned
    with frivolous appeals, see Smith v. Robbins, 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 272 (2000), and I don’t
    think that an appeal of the upward variance would be frivolous. It would certainly
    be difficult given this court’s precedents, but it would not “lack[ ] an arguable basis
    either in law or fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989). The
    reasonableness of a sentence, particularly a sentence based upon an upward variance,
    requires an individualized inquiry. Mr. Aronofsky’s counsel submits in his motion
    to withdraw that the 20-year sentence here “may arguably” be substantively
    unreasonable, and I would direct him to brief that issue. See 
    id. at 329
     (“not all
    unsuccessful claims are frivolous”).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-10500

Filed Date: 8/26/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/26/2021