The 11th Circuit affirmed Warren Savage's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable legal issues…
United States v. Warren Savage
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
The 11th Circuit affirmed Warren Savage's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable legal issues worth appealing, and allowed his appointed lawyer to withdraw.
Why it matters
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Warren Savage's criminal conviction and sentence from a federal district court in Florida. Savage's appointed attorney filed what is called an Anders brief, a formal document stating that after review, counsel found no legitimate grounds for appeal. The court conducted its own independent review of the entire record and agreed, finding no arguable issues of merit.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Warren Savage, whose conviction and sentence are now affirmed on appeal. More broadly, it illustrates how the Anders process works for any criminal defendant whose appointed counsel believes an appeal lacks merit.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Warren Savage was convicted and sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. His appointed attorney, John Wilkins, filed a motion to withdraw from the case along with a special type of legal brief known as an Anders brief, named after the Supreme Court case Anders v. California (1967). An Anders brief is filed when a defense attorney concludes in good faith that there are no non-frivolous grounds to support an appeal. Filing this type of brief allows the court to decide whether that assessment is correct before permitting the attorney to withdraw. The Eleventh Circuit, with Judges Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Kidd on the panel, conducted an independent review of the entire case record. This review is required by law whenever an Anders brief is filed, to protect the defendant's rights even when counsel believes the appeal lacks merit. After completing that review, the court agreed with counsel's assessment that the record contained no arguable issues of merit. As a result, the court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw and affirmed both Savage's conviction and his sentence. No dissent is noted in the opinion. Because the opinion is marked not for publication, it does not create binding legal precedent for future cases, though it resolves Savage's appeal with finality.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
USCA11 Case: 24-13289 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13289 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WARREN LAREN SAVAGE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cr-00018-TKW-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: John Wilkins, appointed counsel for Warren Savage in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further repre- USCA11 Case: 24-13289 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13289 sentation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Cal- ifornia, 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 Savage’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.