FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 31, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1113 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 93-00470 -CR- W MH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us G E O RG E L O PE Z , a . k. a. E l T io, a. k.a. Pana, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (J ul y 31 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: G eo rg e L ope z ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r re fu sin g to e nf or ce it s pr ior order directing that he continue to receive social security benefits while he w as im pr is on ed . Whi le th e d is tri ctco ur t co rrec tl y refu se d t o e nf

or ce t he ord er, weThis date is when L opez pled guilty to a drug conspirac y char g e and first asked the court to ente r 1 an o rd e r d ir e c tin gthat he c ontin ue to r e c e ive so c ia l se c ur ity be ne fi ts whil e in p ri so n ba se d o n h is c oo pe ratio n w iththe g ov e rnme nt, 21 U. S.C. § 8 62 (e ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t se nte nc e L op e z un til 19 99 and did no t th e n ta

ke up the iss ue of

so c ia l se c ur ity

be ne fi ts. Th e Soc ia l Se c ur ity Ad min istratio n ( “ SSA ” ) c ontin ue d to pa y his be ne fi ts u

nti l Ma rc h 2 00 0 whe n it lea rned of hi s incar cer ation. 2 co nc lud e that the c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng t o va cate the or de r; w e re m an d f or ad di ti on al pro ceed in gs . T he pe rt ine nt f

ac ts a bout the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s F eb ru ar y 200 1 or de r -- m ad e
nunc pr o tunc to Se pte m

be r 1994 - - dir ec tin g th at L ope z’ s so ci al se curi ty

be ne fi ts 1
co nti nue w hil e he w as in pr iso n ( the “ Be ne fi ts O rd er ”) a re r ec ite d inapr ior opin ion of this Court. See United States v. Lopez, No. 03-1198 8 (11th Cir. D ec. 28, 2004) (unpu b.). L opez filed that ear lier appeal a fter the district court granted t h e S o ci al Se cu ri t y Co m

m i s s i o n er ’s (a ct i n g th ro u g h th e g o v ern m en ti n Lo p ez ’s crim inal case) F ed.R. Civ.P. 60(b) m otion for r elief f rom the Benefits O rder based on the court’s m isapplication of section 862(e). W e noted that the dis trict court ha d in de ed

m isa ppl ie d se ct ion862 (e ) in e nte ri ng the Be ne fi ts O rd er , but
co nc lud ed

that the c ourt l ac ke d su

bj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n to c or re ct it s e rr or in a cri m in al cas e v ia Ru le 60 (b ) be cau se th atrul e ap pl ie s o nl y to civ il cas es . See i d.,
m anusc ri pt o p. a t 5- 7. W e re m an de d and d ir ec te d th at the or de r gr an tin g R

ule 60 (b ) rel ie f be va cat ed
.L op e z do e s no t c ha lle ng e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r re fu sin g to ho ld the Commis sioner in 2 contempt. And L opez does not argue, nor ha s he argued at any point in these proce eding s, that the B e ne fi ts O rd e r c or

re c tly w as e nte re d. 3 On re m an d, t he di st ric t co ur t v acat edth e o rd er g ran ti ng Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f. A ft er w ri tin g se ve ra l l ette rs to the S SAa ski ng i t t o c om ply w iththe Be ne fi ts O rd er , L ope z fi le d am oti on t o sh owc au se w hy the Co m m iss ion er sho uld not be he ld i n c ivi l c ont em

pt f or f ai lur e to a bid e by the Be ne fi ts O rd er

a nd s ee kin g
en fo rc em en t of

the O rd er . T he Co m

m iss ion er , a ga in a ct ing thr oughthe gove rn m en t, a rg ue d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d no j ur isd ic tio n to e nte r the Be ne fi ts Or der and, thus, the Com m issio ner could not b e held in contem pt. T he district
co urt c onc lud ed

that i t ha d e nte re d th e Be ne fi ts O rd er in er ro r an d de cl ine d to hol d the S SAin co nte m

pt, but or de re d th e gove rn m en t t o br ie f the j ur isd ic tio n is sue so it co uld de te rm ine if

the re w as aba sis to nowva cate the O rd er . T he gov er nm en t repeate d its argum ents that the Order wa s entered w ithou t j urisdictio n and stated that the district court could not com pel its enforcem ent. T he district court que sti one d it s own j ur isd ic tio n to dir ec t tha t so ci al se curi ty be ne fi ts b e co nti nue d, but de cl ine d e ith er

to co m pe l e nf or ce m en t of

the Be ne fi ts O rd er

or to va cate it
. On appeal, Lopez argues that the district court erre d in refusing to enforce the Benefits O rder bec ause the governm ent did no t tim ely appeal it or provide a legal basis for the court to vacate it. T he governm ent again argues that the district 2Se c tio n 86 2( e ), the statut e re lie d u po n b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

to o rd e r t he c ontin uatio n o f b e ne fi ts, 3 plainly is ina

pplicable to L opez. Under 21 U.S.C. § 862(a) (1)( A), a district court has discr etionary authority to declar e cer

tain defe ndants convicted of drug crimes ineligible f or fe dera l benef

its. But 4 court lacked subjec t-m atter j urisdictio n to enter the Or der. T he validityof a di st ric t co ur t’s u nd erl y in g o rd er i s a q ue st io n o f la w su bjec t t o o urpl en ary rev ie w. Se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. K obl itz , 803 F
. 2d 1 523, 152 7 n. 12 ( 11th C ir
. 198 6)
. W e m ust
co nsi de r the que sti on o f subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n “ sua spo nte a t e ve ry

sta ge of the pr oc ee din gs. ” A lla

pa tta h S er vs. , I nc . v. E xxonCo rp . , 362 F
. 3d 7 39, 753 ( 11th Cir. 2004 ). W e re view questions abo ut the dist rict court’ s subject-m atter j urisdictio n de novo
. United States v. Per ez, 956 F.2d 1098 , 1101 (11th Cir. 1992 ). The S ocial Secur ity Ac t sets out th e exclusive m eans of j udicial review of a decision on social security benefits. See 42 U. S. C. § 405 (outlinin g the procedures for obtaining benefits and challenging the denial of benefits). T hat the district
co urt’ s B en ef

its O rd er w as j ur isd ic tio na lly

de fe ct ive is cl ear: c ontrary to 42 U
. S. C. § 40 5( g) a nd ( h) , the or de r w as e nte re d w ith out af ina l de ci sio n of

the Co m m iss ion er a nd w ith out

the S SA ’ s be ing aparty

to the pr oc ee din g. B ec au se L ope z fa ile d to f

oll owpr oc ed

ur es that w oul d a llo wf

or j udi ci al r ev ie wof

the adm inistrative process, the district court had no po we r to issue the Benefits Or der dir ec tin g th e Co m

m iss ion er to co nti nue L ope z’ s so ci al se curi ty be ne fi ts. 3the term “fe dera l be nefit” specific ally excludes social secur ity benef its. 21 U.S.C. § 862(d)(1)( B)
. So, L opez’s participation in the witness protection prog ram did not bear on his e ligibility to rec eive social sec urity

benef its. And L opez pla inly was unentitled to soc ial security benef its while he was inc arc e rate d. Se e 42 U. S.C. § 402 (x) (1 )( A) (i ) (e xplic itl y statin g that soc ia l sec ur ity be ne fi ts s ha ll not be paid to a pe rson while that person is incar cer ated)
. Thus, the B enef its Order is a nullity

and need not be obeyed. See I n re N ovak, 932 F .2d 1397, 140 1 -0 2 (1 1 th Cir. 1991) (orde rs that ar e enter ed without subject-matter jurisdiction or transpar ently are invalid are deeme d a nullity and nee d not be obeyed). The dist rict cour

t appar ently

thought it had no a

uthority to sua sponte vac ate the or der a nd noted 4 that it was “unfor

tunate that [L opez’s] counsel did n o t d i re ct t he Court to the prope r statutory authority , and the c ourt did not imm ediately discover its own e rror .” The dist rict court also noted that it was “not inclined to g o b ey o n d t h e d i rec tion of the appe llate cour t.” B ut our prior pa

nel opinion did not addr ess the district cour t’s subject-matter

jurisdiction to enter the unde rlying or der. 5 While the district court correctly determ ined that the Benefits Or der w as invalid , it f

ailed to rem edy

its lack of subjec t-m atter j urisdictio n. T hat the court 4 did not im m ed ia te ly r ec ogni ze it s e rr or

a nd tha t the gov er

nm en t di d no t pr ovi de the district court with a basis to vacate the O rder are unim portant. Se e U nited St at es v. Co tto n, 122 S
. Ct
. 178 1, 178 5 ( 2002 ) (“ [S ] ubj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n, be ca use it inv olv es ac ourt’ s po w er to he ar ac as e, c anne ve r be f

or fe ite d or
w ai ve d. C onse que ntl y , de fe ct s insub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n r equir e co rr ec tio n regardless of whether the err or wa s raised in district court.”) (em phasis add ed);
se e al so Univ
. of

. S
. A la
. v. A m . T oba cc o C o. , 168 F
. 3d 4 05, 410 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9) (a f ed er al c ourt i s ob lig at ed

to inquir e int o su

bj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n su a spon te whe ne ve r it m ay

be lac ki ng ).L opez argues that the law -of- the-c ase doc tri n e p recludes the district cour t from vac atingthe 5 Be nefits Orde r for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction beca use t his Court, in its prior panel opinion, implicitl y reje cted the g overnme nt’s argument that the district c ourt lack ed s ubject-matter jurisdiction to enter the orde r. Unde r the law -of- the-c ase doc trine, par ties may not r elitigate, and we may not rec onsider, issues that we re de cided in an e arlier appea l of the same c ase. See United States v. J ordan, 429 F .3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005). B ut the prior panel decision wa s limi ted to the unavail a b il it y o f Ru le 6 0 ( b ) r e li e f to c o r r e c t an e r r o r in a c r im in a l c a s e ; it d id n o t comment on whether the district court ha d jurisdiction to enter the unde rl y i n g o rd er i n the first instance . See Luckey v. Miller, 929 F.2d 618, 62 1 (11th Cir. 1991) (the doc trine “doe s not bar conside ration of matters that could have bee n, but were not, resolved in ea rlier pr ocee dings” ). 6 Whe re adis tr ic t c ourt l ac ks s ubj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er ac la im , it shou ld d ism iss it
. S ee id. ( “ Jur isd ic tio n is pow er to de cl ar e the law , a nd whe n it
ce as es to ex ist , the onl y

f unc tio n r em ai nin g to the c ourt i s th at of a nnounc ing the fact an d d is m is si ng th e cau se .”) (i nt ern al cit at io n a nd qu ot at io n o m it te d)
. A cc or din gly , w e va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r re fu sin g to e nf or ce or va cate the Be ne fi ts O rd er

a nd r em an d th e m atte r to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o va cate the Be ne fi ts O rd er f or la ck of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. 5 VACATED AN D REMANDED.