FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 56 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :9 1- cr-0 01 75 -HLA-TEM-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ELLIS E. NE DER, JR., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 5, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Defen da ntEll is E. Neder , Jr. ap pe al s the de ni al of h is pro se m ot io n a sk in g

th e d is tri ctco urt t o e xe rci se it s s up erv is ory po wer t o d is m is s h is in di ctm en t an d va cat e h is fed eral co nv ic ti on s. Aft er h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e was de ni edin 20 03 , Nede r fi le d thi s p ro se m ot io n i n 2 00 9. Be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt l ack ed subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in Nede r’s pr o s e m ot io n, we v acat e th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er an d re m an d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s Ned er’s m ot io n.

I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND In19 92 , a jury co nv ic te d Ned er o n 7 3 c ou nt s s te m m in g fr om

Nede r’s frau du le ntreal est at e d eal s. Ned er was sen te nc edto 14 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d fi ve y ears ’ supe rv is edrel eas e. Nede r’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es were affi rm edon di rectap pe al . See Un it edSta te s v . Nede r, 13 6 F .3d14 59 (11 thCir . 19 98 ), aff’d i n p artan d re v’d i n p art , 52 7 U.S. 1 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 82 7 (1 99 9) , co nv ic ti on s re in st at edon rem an d, 1 97 F.3d11 22 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). InDecem be r 20 01 , Nede r fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces pu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Aft er anev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e d is tri ct co urt d en ie d Ned er’s § 22 55 m ot io n o n Au gu st21 , 20 03 . Both thi s C ourt a ndth e di st ric t co urt d en ie d Ned er’s m ot io ns fora cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity . InDecem be r 20 09 , Nede r fi le d the in st an t p ro se m ot io n re qu es ti ng th atth e di st ric t co urt u se it s s up erv is ory po wer t o v acat e h is ori gi na l 7 3 c on vi ct io ns an d

2di sm is s h is 73 -co un t i nd ic tm en t. Ned er’s p ro se m ot io n a rg ue d tha t the reque st ed

rel ie f was ne ces sa ry

du e to th e p ro se cu to r’s al le ge d m is co nduc t. Sp eci fic al ly, Ned er cl ai m edth atdu rin g h is 19 92 tri al , th e p ro se cu to r withh el d e xc ul pa to ry do cu m en ts an d kno win gl y pre se nt edpe rjure d t es ti m on y fro m on e o f Ned er’s co co ns pi rat or s, Th om as Turn er. The n, i n Dec em be r 20 04 , th e p ro se cu to r de st ro y ed a b ox of e sc ro w reco rd s tha t Ned er cl ai m edwou ldhave reb ut te d Tu rn er’s te st im on y . Acco rd in g t o Ned er’s p ro se m ot io n: (1) inAug us t 1 99 4, Ned er m ov edto pr ot ectth e rec or ds , bu t the di st ric t co urt “ tu rn eda bl in d e y e”; (2) be fo re h is § 2 25 5 h eari ng in20 03 , Nede r as ke d the go ve rn m en t t o re tu rnth e es cro w reco rd s; (3 ) in hi s § 22 55 pro ceed in gs , Nede r rai se d the is su e o f hi s ac ces s t o the all eg ed ly ex cu lp at ory

esc ro w reco rd s, b uthi s re qu es t “ to sea rch th e es cro w reco rd s . . . in go ve rn m en t p os se ss io n was de ni ed ”; an d (4 ) in de nyin g h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt fo un d tha t “ itwas s uf fic ie ntth ata co urt ap po in te d a tt orne y for Nede r ha d b eengi ve n a cces s t o the th ou sa nd s o f rec or ds ingo ve rn m en t p os se ss io n.” The di stric t co urt d en ie d Ned er’s p ro se m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed th atNede r ha d u ns uc ces sf ul ly rais edth e sam e arg um en ts at l eas t twice be fo re, in cl ud in g i n h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n, an d tha t the go ve rn m en t d idno t h av e an ob li ga ti on to ke ep do cu m en ts for ev er. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t Ned er 3fai le d t o s ho w a vi ol at io n o f a rec og ni zedrig htor ade fectinhi s co nv ic ti on s o r

se nt en ces th atwou ldwarran t the rem edy reque st ed . Nederap pe al ed . II . DISCUSSI ON Ty pi cal ly, co ll at eral att ack s o n the va li di ty of a fed eral co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce m

us t b e b ro ug htun de r § 2 25 5. Sawy er v . Hol de r, 32 6 F .3d13 63 , 13 65 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Und er the Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ctof 19 96 (“ AEDPA”), whe n apri so ne r pr ev io us ly has fil eda § 2 25 5 m ot io n, h e m us t ap pl y foran d re cei ve pe rm is si onfro m th is Co urt b efo re fi li ng a su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § § 2 24 4( a), (b )(3 ), 22 55 (h ). Abs en t thi s C ou rt’s p erm is si on , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack s juris di ct io n t o a dd res s the m ot io n, an d i t m us t b e d is m is se d. Uni te d S tate s v . Hol t, 4 17 F.3d11 72 , 11 75 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Afte r th e d en ia l o f a p ris on er’s fi rs t § 22 55 m ot io n, we wi ll lo okbe y on d the labe l o f th e p ris on er’s s ub se qu en tl y fil edpo st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n t o d et erm in e if it is actua ll y , insubs tanc e, a s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n, o r if itis si m il ar en ou gh th at fai li ng to ho lditto th e sa m e requi rem en ts wou ldbe in co ns is te ntwith the AEDPA. Fran qu i v . Flo rid a, 63 8 F .3d13 68 , 13 72 -7 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (co nc lu di ng Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n i n fa ctwas an u naut ho riz edsu cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n o ve r whi ch

4di st ric t co urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ). 1

Here, Ned er al read y

fil eda § 2 25 5 m ot io n tha t was de ni edin20 03 . Neder ’s pr o s e m ot io n o st en si bl y

ask s the di st ric t co urt t o u se it s s up erv is ory po wers to cu re the go ve rn m en t’s 2 00 4 d es tru ct io n o f do cu m en ts . Howev er, the subs tanc e o f Ned er’s p ro se m ot io n s eek s t o i nv al id at e h is co nv ic ti on s an d o bt ai n h is rel eas e ba se d o n a ll eg edpro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t an d B rady an d Gi gl io vi ol at io ns du rin g hi s 1 99 2 tria l, wh ic h the 20 04 de st ru ct io n o f do cu m en ts m erel y co nt in ue s t o

“ co ve r up .” As s uc h, Ned er’s p ro se m ot io n i s ac tu al ly a suc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n, fi le d wi th ou t the requi si te cert ifi cat io n fr om th is Co urt. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in Nede r’s m ot io n. Ned er al te rn at iv el y

ask s u s t o c on st ru e h is pro se m ot io n a s a p et it io n fi le d pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1. Un de r li m it edcir cu m st an ces , a pr ov is io n o f § 2 25 5 pe rm it s a f

ed eral pri so ne r to fil e a § 22 41 pe ti ti on . See 2 8 U.S.C. § § 2 24 1( a), 22 55 (e). Un de r th e “ sa vi ng s cl au se ,” a fed eral pri so ne r m ay fil e a § 22 41 pe ti ti on if a n o th erwi se av ai labl e rem edy un de r § 2 25 5 i s “ in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t th e le ga li ty of [a d efen da nt ’s] de te nt io n.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( e). Howe ve r, res tri ct io ns on su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns , st an di ng alo ne , do no t re nd er tha t
Whether subject matter

jurisdiction ex ists is a question of law we r eview de novo. 1 United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F .3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002). 5se ct io n “ in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve ” wit hi n the m ean in g o f th e sa vi ng s cl au se .

W of fo rdv. Sc ot t, 1 77 F.3d12 36 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Thu s, the sav in gs claus e do es no t p erm ita pr is on er t o c irc umve ntth e requi rem en ts forfil in g a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n m erel y

by fili ng a § 2 24 1 p et it io n. Id . Mor eo ve r, Ned er’s p ro se m ot io n do es no t s at is fy

th e cri te riaforap pl y in g the sav in gs claus e g iv enth atitdo es no t rel y on a retro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le Supr em e Co urt d eci si on , m uc h l es s o ne th at es tabl is he s tha t Ned er was co nv ic te d o f no ne xi st en t o ffen se s. See id . at 1 24 4. Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Ned er’s § 22 55 m ot io n, we v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s Se pt em be r 22 , 20 11 ord er an d re m an d s o the di st ric t co urt m ay

di sm is s Ned er’s m ot io n fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . 2 VACATED AND REMANDED.

Even if a n independe nt jurisdictional basis were to exi st for ente rtainingNede r’s pro se 2 motion, the district cour

t did not err in re fusingto exercise its supervisory power s to vacate Nede r’s c onvictions and sentenc es and dismiss his indi ctment. The a lleg ed “pr osecutoria l misconduct” Ne der c omplains about is the Dece mber 2004 de struction of a box of escr ow rec ords subpoena ed by

the grand jury

in 1991. Neder

was c onvicted in 1992 and e x hausted his direc t and collater al appe als of his convictions and se ntence s by 2003. In fac t, Neder

raised the issue of his acc ess to the esc row re cords in his prior § 2255 motion, which wa s denied. Ne der admits he knew of

the esc row re cords be fore his 1992 trial, so they are not “newly

discovere d evidenc e” that might per

mit a succe ssive § 2255 motion. S ee 28 U .S.C. § 2255(h)(1). And, as the district c ourt noted, the g overnme nt is not required to pre serve rec ords indefinitely . Under

these c ircumstance s, the district court did not abuse its discre tion when it conclude d that Nede r’s re quested re medy was not wa

rra nted. See United States v. H asting s, 461 U.S. 499, 505-06, 103 S. Ct. 1974, 1978-79 (1983) (statingthat courts may use their supe rvisory power s to remedy

a violation of a r ecognized right, to pre serve judicial integrity or to deter

illega l conduct) . 6