UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Filed: June 16, 2022 

Kevin Koller 

Office of the U.S. Attorney 

221 E. Fourth Street 

Suite 400 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

William Prigmore 

F.C.I. Terre Haute

P.O. Box 33

Terre Haute, IN 47808

Re: Case No. 21-3716, USA v. William Prigmore

Originating Case No. : 3:17-cr-00187-1 

Dear Counsel and Mr. Prigmore, 

 The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case. Judgment to follow. 

Sincerely yours, 

s/Ryan E. Orme 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7079 

cc: Mr. Richard W. Nagel 

Enclosure 

Mandate to issue 

Case: 3:17-cr-00187-WHR Doc #: 219 Filed: 06/16/22 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 2255 (1 of 5)
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION 

No. 21-3716 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM PRIGMORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

O R D E R 

Before: McKEAGUE, WHITE, and READLER, Circuit Judges. 

William Prigmore appeals two orders of the district court, including one overruling his 

post-judgment motions that were filed while his appeal of his criminal judgment was pending. 

This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that 

oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). 

A jury found Prigmore guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing ammunition 

as a felon, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). In July 2020, the district court sentenced him 

to 120 months of imprisonment. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. United States v. Prigmore ̧ 

15 F.4th 768 (6th Cir. 2021). 

Prigmore was remanded to federal custody after the district court pronounced judgment. 

In March 2021, while the direct appeal was pending, Prigmore filed two pro se motions seeking 

changes to the conditions of his confinement and another pro se motion asking the court to review 

all public records <to prove [a] pattern of torture under continuing detention conditions.= The

motions also made general references to Prigmore9s innocence and to Prigmore9s grievances with 

the district court9s treatment of him. On July 8, 2021, the district court issued an order overruling

Case: 3:17-cr-00187-WHR Doc #: 219 Filed: 06/16/22 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 2256 (2 of 5)
No. 21-3716 

- 2 -

these motions <due to its lack of jurisdiction over a matter pending before the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.= The court also pointed out that it did not have authority to direct 

the Bureau of Prisons to grant the changes Prigmore sought. Owing to Prigmore9s numerous other 

filings and the court9s belief that it lacked jurisdiction while his appeal was pending, the court

issued a separate order directing the court clerk to return all future correspondence from Prigmore 

unopened. 

Prigmore filed a timely notice of appeal with respect to both orders. We issued a published 

decision affirming the criminal judgment in October 2021, and in December the mandate issued 

in the appeal. 

We review de novo the district court9s determination of jurisdiction with respect to the

order overruling Prigmore9s motions. United States v. Johnson, 932 F.3d 965, 966 (6th Cir. 2019)

(per curiam). But we also have an obligation to determine whether we ourselves have jurisdiction 

to decide the appeal. The government argues that this appeal is moot because the district court has 

regained jurisdiction following the issuance of the mandate in the direct appeal of Prigmore9s 

conviction and sentence. <It is a basic principle of Article III [of the United States Constitution]

that a justiciable case or controversy must remain 8extant at all stages of review, not merely at the 

time the complaint is filed.9= United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (per

curiam) (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)). 

Consequently, we must dismiss an appeal if it becomes moot pending our review. Radiant Glob. 

Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 951 F.3d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). 

Our mandate did not moot this appeal. Whether the district court presently has jurisdiction 

to decide Prigmore9s post-judgment motions has no bearing on whether the district court had

jurisdiction over the motions while Prigmore9s first appeal was pending. Nevertheless, the district

court correctly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Prigmore9s post-judgment motions

to the extent they challenged his convictions and sentences. The general rule is that filing a notice 

of appeal <confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control 

over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.= Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,

Case: 3:17-cr-00187-WHR Doc #: 219 Filed: 06/16/22 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 2257 (3 of 5)
No. 21-3716 

- 3 -

459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); see United States v. Garcia-Robles, 562 F.3d 763, 767-68 (6th Cir. 2009) 

(reiterating that a notice of appeal <divested the district court of jurisdiction= with respect to a 

criminal case). Very few exceptions to this divestiture rule exist, especially if the appeal was 

timely filed with respect to a final appealable order. See Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 394-

95 (6th Cir. 1993). 

In criminal proceedings, one such exception applies with respect to whether the defendant 

should be released or in custody pending a direct criminal appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 9(b); see United 

States v. Krzyske, 857 F.2d 1089, 1091-92 (6th Cir. 1988); Jago v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 570 F.2d 618, 

623 (6th Cir. 1978). The district court also has authority to <recommend to the Attorney General 

that the defendant be confined near the place of the trial or appeal for a period reasonably necessary 

to permit the defendant to assist in preparing the appeal.= Fed. R. Crim. P. 38(b)(2). Neither

exception applies to Prigmore. His motions did not seek his release from custody pending the 

resolution of his appeal and the district court correctly pointed out that it could not order the Bureau 

of Prisons to provide the relief Prigmore wanted, since Criminal Rule 38 only empowers the court 

to make recommendations. 

The government properly recognizes on appeal that some of Prigmore9s post-judgment

claims do not concern <aspects of the case involved in the appeal,= Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58, but

rather, conditions-of-confinement claims potentially cognizable through a separate proceeding. 

These latter claims, including the government9s defenses, should be addressed on remand. 

As to the district court9s order to the clerk, <[t]here is nothing unusual about imposing

prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation.= Feathers v.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998). <Moreover, we see nothing wrong, in

circumstances such as these, with an order . . . that places limits on a reasonably defined category 

of litigation because of a recognized pattern of repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious cases within that 

category.= Id. We note that the district court9s order here was issued on the basis that Prigmore9s 

<underlying conviction is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit.= But the order does not include language ending its effect upon the issuance of the

Case: 3:17-cr-00187-WHR Doc #: 219 Filed: 06/16/22 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 2258 (4 of 5)
No. 21-3716 

- 4 -

mandate in the direct appeal and the return of the case9s jurisdiction to the district court. We

therefore vacate the order and remand the matter to the district court for any necessary 

modifications. See Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987) (order). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court9s order denying Prigmore9s pro se motions to

the extent those motions addressed <aspects of the case involved in the appeal,= Griggs, 459 U.S.

at 58, but recognize that jurisdiction was returned to the district court upon the entry of the 

mandate. We VACATE the district court9s order to the clerk and REMAND the matter for

additional consideration. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk 

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Case: 3:17-cr-00187-WHR Doc #: 219 Filed: 06/16/22 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 2259 (5 of 5)