[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12876

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEETAVIOUS M. GAINES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:96-cr-06159-KMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12876 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12876

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Leetavious Gaines appeals the district court’s denial of two motions in which he sought a new sentencing hearing 

and a modification to his sentence based on an error that he alleged 

occurred at his sentencing hearing more than 20 years earlier. The 

government moves for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s motion. 

I.

After a jury convicted Gaines of one count of conspiracy to 

commit Hobbs Act robbery, six counts of Hobbs Act robbery, six 

counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, and one count 

of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court imposed a 1,330-month sentence.

More than 20 years after his sentencing, Gaines filed two pro 

se motions asking the district court to conduct a new sentencing 

hearing. He argued that the district court had plainly erred at his 

sentencing by incorrectly applying § 1B1.2 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines in connection with his conspiracy conviction. According to Gaines, the district court could modify his sentence under

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) together with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).

The district court denied Gaines’s motions. It explained that 

it could not modify the sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal 

USCA11 Case: 22-12876 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 2 of 5
22-12876 Opinion of the Court 3

Procedure 52(b) because that rule gave appellate courts authority 

to correct errors that had not been timely raised in district court

but did not authorize a district court to modify a sentence. And it

concluded that it could not modify the sentence under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) because any motion under that rule had 

to be made within one year of judgment.

This is Gaines’s appeal. The government has moved for 

summary affirmance.

II.

Summary disposition is appropriate where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are 

involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).1 It 

also 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.” Id.

In his motions, Gaines sought to have the district court modify his sentence, which was imposed decades earlier. But district 

courts lack the inherent authority to modify a defendant’s sentence 

and “may do so only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United 

States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 605–06 (11th Cir. 2015).

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

adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed 

down before October 1, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 22-12876 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12876

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) did not authorize 

the district court to modify Gaines’s sentence. Under this rule, “[a] 

plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even 

though it was not brought to the court’s attention.” Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 52(b). This rule “provides a court of appeals a limited power to 

correct errors that were forfeited because not timely raised in district court.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). It does 

not permit a district court to modify a sentence after it has been

imposed. 

Gaines nevertheless argues that the district court had authority to modify his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Under this rule, a district court may grant relief from 

a final judgment based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). This rule allows a district 

court to correct “all mistakes of law made by a judge.” Kemp v. 

United States, 596 U.S. 528, 534 (2022). A motion under Rule

60(b)(1) “must be made within a reasonable time” and “no more 

than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(c)(1). Even if Gaines could rely on this rule of civil procedure 

to modify his criminal sentence, his motions, which were filed 

more than 20 years after the district court imposed the sentence,

were clearly untimely. 

Summary affirmance is warranted here because the government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law. See Groendyke 

USCA11 Case: 22-12876 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 4 of 5
22-12876 Opinion of the Court 5

Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance.2

AFFIRMED.

2Gaines submitted an untimely response to the government’s motion for summary affirmance but failed to file a motion requesting leave to respond out of 

time. Even if Gaines’s response was properly before us, we would reach the 

same result.

USCA11 Case: 22-12876 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 5 of 5