USA v. Avery Smartt, No. 21-1637 (7th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued August 3, 2022 Decided January 24, 2023 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge No. 21-1637 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 18-CR-30138-NJR-01 AVERY SMARTT, Defendant-Appellant. Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Judge. -- AND -- Nos. 21-1637 & 21-2297 Page 2 Argued April 27, 2022 Decided January 24, 2023 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge No. 21-2297 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 1:17-CR-00700(1) BENNY BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant. Andrea R. Wood, 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). Nos. 21-1637 & 21-2297 Page 3 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 de cient 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).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
