FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 3 0, 20 11 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 19 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 9- 00 15 7- CR-P AS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us JAM ES F. SMITH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 30 , 20 11 ) Befo re MAR TIN, KRAVITCH, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ja m es Sm it h, a f

ed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is po st -jud gm en t m ot io n t o d is m is s an Apri l 1 98 8 in di ctm en t fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew of th ereco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g S m it h’s

m ot io n a ndrem an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . I. On the m orni ng of J anua ry 28 , 19 88 , a Uni te d S ta te s C oa stGuar d c ut te r in te rcep te d t he sai li ng ve ss el Ca pi ly a , whi chha d b een flying anAus tra li anfla g, of f th e so ut hwe stco as t o f Hai ti . Sm it h, wh o was on bo ardth e Ca pi ly a , refu se d t o al lo w th e Co as t Gu ardto bo ardth e b oa t. Bu t upo n s po tt in g t he ve ss el ag ai n o n Feb ru ary 2, 1 98 8, the Co as t Gu ard , hav in g b y th enrece iv eda st at em en t o f no ob jecti onfro m

th e Aus tra li ango ve rn m en t, b oa rd edth e Ca pi ly a an d d is co ve red m ari juan a ab oa rd . On Ap ril 29 , 19 88 , a fed eral gra ndjury si tt in g i n t he So ut he rnDis tri ctof Fl or id a returne d asupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t tha t ch arg edSm it h wi th vario us na rco ti cs an d fi rearm s v io la ti on s. OnJu ne 21 , 19 88 , Smit h p le ad edgu il ty to po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m ari juan a whi le on bo arda ve ss el subjec t t o th e juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 4 6 U.S.C. ap p. § 19 03 (a). But 1 Sm ith fa il edto ap pe ar fo r se nt en ci ng on Sep te m be r 19 , 19 88 . On Apr il 4, 1 98 9, Sm ith was in di ct edforfai lu re t o app ear i n v io la ti on of b ot h 1 8 U.S.C. § 40 1( 3) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 46 . This provision, as revised, is now c odified at 46 U.S.C. § 70503. 1 2Sm it h re m ai ne d afug it iv e unt il he was a rres te d i n an u nr el at edcas e o n

Apr il 30 , 20 03 . On Ju ly 11, 2 00 3, Sm it h p le ad edgu il ty to fa il ur e to ap pe ar i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 14 6. Th e fai lu re t o app ear c as e was co ns ol id at edwith th e m ari juan a cas e fo r th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed Sm ith t o c on se cu ti ve term s o f 25 2 m on th s i m pr is on m en t o n t he dru g c on vi ct io n an d 1 0 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t o n t he fai lure t o app ear c on vi ct io n. Sm it h fi le d ti m el y no ti ces of app eal inbo th cas es , andth is Co urt af firm edinbo th cas es , with th e m an da te is su in g o n M ay 12 , 20 04 inth e fai lu re t o app ear c as e an d o n J ul y 1, 20 05 inth e m ari

juan a cas e. On J un e 1 7, 2 00 8, Sm it h fi le d apro se m ot io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 to va cat e, se t as id e o r co rrec t h is sen te nc e in th e m ari juan a cas e. In h is § 2 25 5

2 m ot io n, Sm it h c ha ll en ge d t he co urt’s s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on , cla im in g t ha t h e an d h is co co ns pi rat or s n ev er i nt en de d t o e nt er the Uni te d S ta te s an d t ha t the re was no ag reem en t t o p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te th e m ari juan a in th e Uni te d St at es , andth eref

or e, th ere was no juri sd ic ti on ov er the off en se of c on vi ct io n. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d S m it h’s § 22 55 m ot io n a s t im e-b arre d, an d a lt ern at iv el y , on

“Unde r the ‘prison mailbox rule,’ a pro seprisoner’ s court filingis deemed f iled on the 2 date it is delivere d to prison authorities for mailing .” Willi ams v. McNe il, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009). 3th e m eri ts . Bo th th e d is tri ctco urt an d t hi s C ou rt d en ie d S m ith’s m ot io ns fora

cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . On Oct ob er 1 4, 2 00 9, Sm it h fi le d apro se p os t-ju dg m en t m ot io n i n h is fai lu re t o app ear c as e. Inth atm ot io n, wh ic h S m it h s tyledas a“ Mo ti onby Cros sCl ai m an t J am es Sm it h R eo pe ni ng th e Cri min al Cas e o n M ot io n t o Di sm is s fo r Lackof J ur is di ct io n,” Sm it h arg ue d t ha t the co urt i n S m it h’s m ari juan a cas e la ck edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th atit ha d ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e Ca pi ly a an d b ecau se an y

pro of th e g ov ern m en t co ul d of fer t o e st ab li sh juri sd ic ti on ov er the Ca pi ly a wou ldvi ol at e Sm it h’s ri gh ts un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. The g ov ern m en t re sp on de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt l ack ed juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the m ot io n e it he r as a m ot io n c ha ll en gi ng th e in di ctm en t un de r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (3 )(B) or a s a m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e o r co rrec t h is sen te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 . The g ov ern m en t ar gu edth at th ere was no Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) juri sd ic ti on be cau se Sm it h’s m ari juan a cas e was no lo ng er p en di ng . Viewi ng th e m ot io n a s a § 22 55 m ot io n, the go ve rn m en t as se rte d th atjuri sd ic ti on was l ack in g b ecau se Sm ith h adno t o bt ai ne d aut ho riz at io n fr om th is Co urt t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Th e g ov ern m en t ar gu ed al te rn at iv el y

th atSm ith’s m ot io n s ho ul d b e d en ie d o n t he m eri ts . In a b rie f or de r, th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S m it h’s m ot io n, ex pl ai ni ng th at“ [a]s tho ro ug hl y 4ad dr es se d i n t he Gov ern m en t’s re sp on se , th e [c]ou rt l ack [ed ] juri sd ic ti on to

co ns id er the m ot io n a nd , eve n i f th e [c]ou rt h adjuri sd ic ti on , th e m ot io n l ack s m eri t.” Sm it h n ow ap pe al s t ha t o rd er. II. Subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on of t he di st ric t co urt i s re vi ewed de no vo . Uni te d St at es v. Pe rez, 9 56 F.2d10 98 , 11 01 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). “ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d to a le ss strin ge ntst an da rdth anpl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con st ru ed .” Tann enbaum v. Un it edSta te s, 1 48 F.3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ). “ Fed eral co urts are o bl ig at edto lo okbe y on d t he lab el of a pr o s e in m at e’s m ot io n t o d et erm in e if itis co gn iz ab le un de r a d iff eren t s ta tu to ry fram ewo rk .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sto ss el , 34 8 F .3d13 20 , 13 22 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); se e al so Cas tro v. Un it edSta te s, 5 40 U.S. 37 5, 3 77 , 12 4 S . Ct. 7 86 , 78 9 (2 00 3) (“ Und er a l on gs ta nd in g p ract ic e, a co urt s om et im es tre at s as a reque stforhabe as rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 am ot io n t ha t a pr o s e fed eral pri so ne r ha s l ab el ed di ffer en tl y .”). Sm it h’s p os t-ju dg m en t m ot io n i n t he fai lure t o app ear c as e co ul d b e co ns tru edeit he r as a m ot io n c ha ll en gi ng th e in di ctm en t u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (3 )(B) , or a s a m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e o r co rrec t h is se nt en ce u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 .

5Und er Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) , “ a m ot io n a ll eg in g ade fectinth e in di ctm en t o r

in fo rm at io n [mustbe m ad e b efo re tria l,] bu t atan y ti m e whi le th e cas e is pe nd in g, th e co urt m ay

he ar a cl ai m

th atth e in di ctm en t . . . fail s t o i nv ok e th e co urt’s juri sd ic ti on .” A cas e is no lo ng er “pe nd in g” forth e p ur po se s o f Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) on ce the m an da te ha s i ss ue d i n t he di rectap pe al . Uni te d S ta te s v . Els o, 5 71 F.3d 11 63 , 11 66 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). As n ot edab ov e, th e m an da te s i ss ue d i n S m it h’s di rectap pe al s i n 2 00 4 a nd20 05 . Sm it h’s p os t-ju dg m en t m ot io n i n the fai lu re t o ap pe ar ca se was n otfil edun ti l 2 00 9. As su ch , nei th er ca se was “ pe nd in g” for pu rp os es of Rul e 1 2( b) (3 )(B) when th e m ot io n was fil ed , andth e d is tri ctco urt th eref or e co ul d n otco ns id er the m ot io n u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) . 3 Bu t as th e g ov ern m en t’s ar gu m en t s ug ge st s, Sm ith’s m ot io n c ou ldals o b e co ns tru edas am ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e o r co rrec t h is sen te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Th e st atut e p ro vi de s a b as is by whi ch a fed eral pri so ne r m ay ch al le ng e h is co nv ic ti on “up on th e g ro un d tha t the sen te nc e was im po se d i n v io la ti on of t he Co ns ti tu ti on or l aws of t he Uni te d S ta te s, o r th atth e co urt was witho utjuri sd ic ti on to im po se su ch sen te nc e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (a). In hi s m ot io n, Sm it h a rg ue d b ot h

We note that Smit h’s motion was filed in his failure to appea r ca se, but it sought 3 dismiss al of the indictment in his marijuana case . Be cause this Court’s mandates in both case s wer e issued we ll before the motion was filed, howe ver, our conclusion with respe ct to a 12(b) (3) motion mus t be the same reg ardle ss of which indictment Smith attacked a nd in which ca se he filed the motion. 6th atth e co urt i n h is m ari juan a cas e la ck edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d tha t h is se nt en ce was im

po se d i n v io la ti on of h is rig ht s u nd er the Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. The go ve rn m en t ar gu ed , andth e d is tri ctco urt ap paren tl y ag reed , th atth e co urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Sm it h’s m ot io n a s a § 22 55 m ot io n b ecau se it wou ldbe a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Be cau se Sm it h’s m ot io n was fil edinhi s fa il ur e to ap pe ar ca se , we can no t ag ree. To fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n, the pe ti ti on er m us t fi rs t fi le anap pl ic at io n wi th th e ap pr op ria te co urt o f ap pe al s fo r anord er au th or iz in g t he di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r it . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( h) ; 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(3 )(A). Bec au se Sm it h n ev er o bt ai ne d aut ho riz at io n fr om th is Co urt, the di st ric t co urt wou ldlac k ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Fa rri s v. Un it edSta te s, 3 33 F.3d12 11 , 12 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Bu t a § 22 55 m ot io n i s no t s eco ndor s uc ces si ve withi n t he m ean in g o f § 2 24 4( b) (3 ) if itatt ack s, fo r th e fir stti m e, a d iff

eren t ju dg m en t tha n a n e arl ie r § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Se e Ma gwo odv. Pat te rs on , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 78 8, 2 79 2 (2 01 0) (ho ld in g t ha t a h ab eas ap pl ic at io n b ro ug ht un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 i s n ot“ se co ndor s uc ces si ve ” und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b ) if it“ ch al le ng es a ne w jud gm en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e”). Th atis th e si tu at io n h ere be cau se Sm it h’s ea rli er § 22 55 m ot io n was fil edinhi s m ari juan a cas e, whi le th e pr es en t m ot io n was fil edinhi s fa il ur e to ap pe ar ca se . 7Sm it h’s m ot io n wo ul d t he refo re b e co ns tru edas afir st§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, ra th er

th anas asec on d o r su cces si ve m ot io n. Bu t a “ co urt ca nn otso rech arac te riz e a pr o se li ti ga nt ’s m ot io n a s t he li ti ga nt ’s firs t § 22 55 m ot io n un less th e co urt i nf orm s th e li ti ga ntof i ts in te ntto rech arac te riz e, warn s t he li ti ga ntth atth e rech arac te riz at io n wi ll subjec t s ub se qu en t § 22 55 m ot io ns to th e la w’ s ‘sec on d o r su cces si ve ’ res tri ct io ns , andpro vi de s t he li ti ga ntwith an o pp ortu ni ty to wi th dr aw, orto am en d, the fil in g.” Cas tro , 54 0 U.S. at37 7, 1 24 S. Ct. at78 9. Th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t co m

pl y with t he Cas tro requi rem en ts inth is cas e, an d t he refo re erred in it s al te rn at iv e h ol di ng de nyin g S m it h’s m ot io n o n t he m eri ts . W e co nc lu de th atbe cau se Sm it h’s m ot io n c ou ldpro pe rly be co ns tru edas hi s fi rs t § 22 55 ch al le ng e to hi s fa il ur e to ap pe ar co nv ic ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n h ol di ng th atitlac ke d s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the m ot io n an d fu rth er erredinde nyin g S m it h’s m ot io n o n t he m eri ts witho utha vi ng fir st co m pl ie d wi th Cas tro . The d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er i s the refo re REVERSED an d t he cas e is REMANDED to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith th is op in io n. REVERSED a nd REMANDED.

8