USA v. Daniel Zirk

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10051
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cr-00224-WWB-EJK-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL ZIRK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 30, 2021)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Taylor, appointed counsel for Daniel Zirk in this direct criminal
appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed
USCA11 Case: 21-10051 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 Zirk’s
convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Zirk’s pro se motion for appointment
of counsel is DENIED as moot.
We recognize that Zirk’s response to counsel’s motion to withdraw contains
allegations that counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel are best presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
rather than on direct appeal, we decline to consider these claims at this time, see
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05, 508 (2003), though Zirk is free to
raise these allegations on collateral review in a § 2255 motion.
USCA11 Case: 21-10051 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --