[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11733

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL D. BEITER, JR., 

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60273-WPD-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11733 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11733

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Beiter, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, 

appeals the district court’s order denying his second post-judgment 

motion to “correct the record” in his underlying criminal case. The 

government, in turn, has moved for summary affirmance, arguing 

that the appeal is frivolous. Beiter opposes the motion. 

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.” Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 An appeal 

is frivolous when the party is not entitled to relief because there is 

no basis in fact or law to support their position. See Bilal v. Driver, 

251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A claim is frivolous if it is 

without arguable merit either in law or fact.”). 

In 2013, a jury convicted Michael Beiter, Jr., of conspiracy to 

defraud the United States and multiple counts of false and fictious 

claims upon the United States, and he was sentenced to 300 

months’ imprisonment. Since then, Beiter has filed numerous 

post-judgment motions seeking to clarify or otherwise correct the 

1 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) 

(holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior 

to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).

USCA11 Case: 22-11733 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 2 of 4
22-11733 Opinion of the Court 3

record. As relevant to this appeal, in May 2022, Beiter filed a 

“motion to correct the record” in which he sought to have the 

record in his case “corrected” to reflect that Beiter was never 

represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (“FPD”) in his

underlying criminal case because he had “fired” FPD as counsel.2

The district court denied the motion. Beiter now appeals the 

district court’s ruling, arguing that the district court erred in 

denying his request to correct the record. 

Here, despite Beiter’s contentions to the contrary, the 

record reflects correctly that FPD represented Beiter as his courtappointed counsel during the underlying criminal proceedings

from December 2011 to January 2012.3 Therefore, Beiter’s appeal 

of the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the 

record is frivolous and the government’s motion for summary 

2 Beiter previously filed a similar motion in April 2022, which the district court 

denied. 

3 The record reflects that, at Beiter’s initial appearance in 2011, Beiter opposed 

the appointment of counsel but also stated that he would not be hiring counsel 

and that he would not be representing himself, so the magistrate judge 

appointed the FPD to represent him over his objection. And throughout the 

proceedings, Beiter repeatedly asserted that he “fired” FPD counsel, and the 

magistrate judge explained that “[f]or purposes of this Court’s record . . . 

regardless of how many times you fire him, he is appointed for these 

proceedings at this time.” Thus, while it is clear that Beiter disagreed with the 

court’s decision concerning counsel, from a legal standpoint, Beiter was in fact 

represented by the FPD during a portion of the underlying criminal case, and 

there is nothing to correct in the record. The record is legally accurate. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11733 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11733

affirmance is GRANTED.4 Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 

1162.

4 Beiter’s motion for this Court to hear this case as an initial matter en banc is 

DENIED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11733 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 4 of 4