[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11930

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRAIG SIZER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20715-BB-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11930 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11930

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Sizer, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release and the denial of his 

motion for reconsideration of that order because the district court 

did not wait for him to reply to the Government’s response before 

denying the motion for compassionate release.1 The Government 

responds by moving for summary affirmance, arguing Sizer abandoned any argument regarding the district court’s finding he was 

not entitled to compassionate release, the district court properly 

found that Sizer did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting release, and the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Sizer’s motion before he replied to the Government’s response. After review,2 we affirm the district court. 

The local rules for the Southern District of Florida provide 

that a reply to a response opposing a motion must be filed within 

seven days after the response is filed and served. S.D. Fla. Local 

Rule 7.1(c)(1). Time is computed in accordance with the applicable 

1 We do not address Sizer’s arguments regarding the district court’s denial of 

his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct his sentence as 

that issue is addressed in a separate appeal. 

2 We review a district court’s application of its local rules for an abuse of discretion. United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2015). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). 

USCA11 Case: 23-11930 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-11930 Opinion of the Court 3

federal rules of procedure. Id. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a party who receives service by mail has an additional three days to file a reply. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c) (providing 

an additional three days to respond for parties who receive service 

by mail under Rule 49(a)(4)(C)). When a party serves his opponent 

by mail, service is complete upon mailing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

49(a)(4)(C). We “will not typically second-guess the district court’s 

interpretation of its own Rule regarding timeliness in an effort to 

avoid undermining the goal of those standards that local rules seek 

to establish.” United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228, 1247 (11th Cir. 

2015) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). 

The Government is clearly correct as a matter of law that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sizer’s motion for compassionate release before Sizer replied.3 See Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)4 (explaining 

summary disposition is appropriate 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, as is 

more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous”). Under the 

3 Sizer does not argue on appeal that the district court erred in finding he did 

not state extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release, so he abandoned any argument regarding that finding. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 

870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating we review pro se pleadings liberally, but issues 

not briefed on appeal are abandoned).

4 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), 

this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11930 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11930

district court’s local rules, Sizer had ten days to file a reply from the 

time the Government mailed its response. S.D. Fla. Local Rule 

7.1(c)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(a)(4)(C). And 

15 days passed from May 10th, when the Government mailed its 

response, until May 25th, when the district court entered its order. 

The district court did not apply an incorrect legal standard or make 

a clear error of judgment in applying its local rule on timeliness 

and deciding to rule on Sizer’s motion without his reply. See 

McLean, 802 F.3d at 1233. 

And the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the motion for reconsideration because there was no evidence the 

arguments presented in Sizer’s reply brief would have changed the 

outcome of his motion for compassionate release. His proposed 

reply discussed the sentencing disparities with his codefendants and 

his rehabilitation, which the district court had already found were 

not extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release because they were not recognized under § 1B1.13. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13; United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1248, 1263, 1265

(11th Cir. 2021). Therefore, his reply would not have changed the 

outcome of the court’s order.

Accordingly, because the Government’s position is clearly 

correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the motion for summary 

affirmance and AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Sizer’s motion 

for compassionate release and the denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-11930 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 4 of 4