Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13472/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13472-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Stephens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13472

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TODD STEPHENS, 

Defendant-Appellant,

PNC MORTGAGE,

a division of PNC Bank 

National Association, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 23-13472 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13472

Defendants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:23-cv-80043-AHS

____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Todd Stephens, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment to the government for 

enforcement of a federal restitution lien. He argues that the district 

court’s decision should be reversed due to procedural errors and 

the failure to consider his substantive defenses. He argues that the 

court’s procedural deficiencies included the mismanagement of appeal fees and the improper handling of his motions. He also argues 

that his several substantive defenses were not adequately considered by the court, including issues related to the validity of the foreclosure process and the calculation of the alleged debt. He further 

argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motions 

related to the appointment of a receiver and the stay of property 

sale. He argues that the court erred in ordering restitution in excess 

of $130 million. 

In response, the government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that such disposition is warranted because Mr. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13472 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-13472 Opinion of the Court 3

Stephens failed to oppose summary judgment or sufficiently brief 

his appeal, and he has abandoned any argument for reversal. 

Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of 

the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” 

or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a 

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case, or where . . . the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969). 

We generally review de novo the district court’s grant of a 

motion for summary judgment, considering all of the evidence and 

the inferences it may yield in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 

2005). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

But an appellant can abandon issues by failing to brief them 

on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) 

(applying this rule to a pro se litigant). An appellant can also abandon a claim by presenting it only in “passing references” or “in a 

perfunctory manner without supporting arguments or authority.” 

Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 

2014). Simply stating that an issue exists, without providing reasoning and citation to authority that the appellants rely on, constitutes abandonment of that issue. See id. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13472 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13472

Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that an issue not 

raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal 

generally will not be considered. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). This principle is not 

a jurisdictional limitation but merely a rule of practice, and the decision whether to consider an argument first made on appeal is left 

primarily to our discretion, to be exercised on the facts of individual 

cases. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355, 360 

(11th Cir. 1984). In certain exceptional circumstances, it may be 

appropriate to exercise this discretion. These include situations 

where: (1) the issue involves a pure question of law and refusal to 

consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the appellant 

raises an objection to an order which he had no opportunity to raise 

at the district court level; (3) the interest of substantial justice is at 

stake; (4) the proper resolution is beyond any doubt; and (5) the 

issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great 

public concern. See id. at 360-61. 

Absent exceptional circumstances, we will not consider objections to the district court’s initial restitution calculation in a 

criminal case when the defendant fails to raise his objections to a 

restitution order before the sentencing court and on direct appeal 

and presents them for the first time only in a collateral proceeding. 

See Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Here, Mr. Stephens’s contention that the district court procedurally erred was waived because he failed to raise it before the 

district court. Even if the matter was properly before us, it was 

USCA11 Case: 23-13472 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-13472 Opinion of the Court 5

abandoned on appeal because Mr. Stephens made only a passing 

reference to it in his brief. See Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1331; 

Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Similarly, his argument that the court 

failed to address his substantive defenses was abandoned because 

he simply raised it in a perfunctory manner without supporting authority. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. His arguments that the court 

erred in denying his motions relating to the appointment of a receiver and the stay of property sale are not properly before us. See 

Bogle, 162 F.3d at 661. Finally, he failed to timely challenge the calculation of his restitution amount before the district court or on 

direct appeal. See Cani, 331 F.3d at 1212. 

Thus, we summarily affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the government. It is clear as a matter 

of law that the court did not err. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13472 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 5 of 5