USCA11 Case: 21-10051 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 2 of 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.