FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 19, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Nos . 06 -1 49 54 & 0 7- 10 09 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos
. 03-20272-CR-PAS, 03-20272-CR-PAS-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JUAN CARLOS ELSO, a.k .a. J.C. El so , D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 9, 2 00 9) Befo re: TJOFLAT an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , andTHRASH , Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble Thomas W. Thrash, United States District Judge for the N orthern D istrict of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation.I.

InUni te d S ta te s v . Els o, 4 22 F.3d13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), th is co urt af firm ed Ju anCarl os Els o’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es on two co un ts of c on sp ira cy to
co m m itm on ey

lau nd eri ng (18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( a)(1 )(B) (i) ) (Co un t 1 ) an d t o c on du ct a fi na nc ia l t ran sa ct io n d es ig ne d t o a vo ida tr an sa ct io n re po rti ng requi rem en t (1 8 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( a)(1 )(B) (ii )) (Co un t 2 ), bo th in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( h) , as well as asubs ta nt iv e co un t o f m on ey lau nd eri ng (Co un t 4 ), in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( a)(1 )(B) (i) . The m an da te affi rm in g El so ’s con vi ct io ns an d
se nt en ces is su edon Decem be r 8, 2 00 5, an d t he di st ric t co urt en te rediton it s do ck eton Decem

be r 13 , 20 05
. On Ap ril 10 , 20 06 , Els o p et it io ne d t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt fo r a writof c ert io rari . The Co urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on onMay 15, 2 00 6, El so v. Un it ed St at es , 54 7 U.S. 1 13 1, 1 26 S. Ct. 2 04 9, 1 64 L. Ed. 2d78 4 (2 00 6) (m em .), an d de ni edreh eari ng on Aug us t 2 1, 2 00 6, El so v. Un it edSta te s, 5 48 U.S. 93 4, 1 27 S. Ct . 22 1, 1 65 L. Ed. 2d10 02 (20 06 ) (m em .). On J un e 1 2, 2 00 6, El so m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (3 )(B) forrel ie f fro m jud gm en t o n t he gro un d t ha t t he
co urt l ack edsubjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on as t o C ou nt4 o f th e in di ct m en t o r,

2al te rn at iv el y , th atCo un t 4 fai le d t o s ta te anoff en se . Els o a rg ue d t ha t t he co urt 1 la ck edjuri sd ic ti on ov er Co un t 4 be cau se th e in di ctm en t o m it te d a n e ss en ti al el em en t o f th e Co un t 4 off en se , i.e., itfai le d t o a ll eg e th atth e fi na nc ia l t ran sa ct io n atis su e aff

ect edin te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce . On Aug us t 1 4, 2 00 6, t he di st ric t
co urt en te redanord er d en y in g El so ’s m ot io n o n a lt ern at iv e g ro un ds , on e b ei ng th atth e m ot io n was un ti m el y un de r Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) an d the ch al le ng e to th e in di ct m en t t hu s wai ve d u nd er Ru le 12 (e). OnAug us t 3 1, 2 00 6, El so m ov edth e di st ric t co urt fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e Aug us t 1 4 o rd er. The n, b efo re the co urt
ru le d o n t he m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, El so fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al onSep te m be r 7, 2 00 6, t o c ha ll en ge th e Aug us t 1 4 o rd er. 2 On Oct ob er 2 0, 2 00 6, El so m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt, p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 14 4 a nd45 5, t o re cu se fro m ha nd li ng any

furth er p ro ceed in gs in vo lv in g h im
. The co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n o n No ve m be r 27 , 20 06 , and , onDecem be r 29 , 20 06 , Rule 12(b)(3) (B ) states: 1 (3) Motions That Must Be Made Before Trial. The followingmust be raised befor e trial:

. . . (B ) a motion alleg ing a defe ct in the indictment or information – but at any time while the ca se is pending , the cour t may hear a claim that the indictment or infor mation fails to invoke the cour t’s jurisdiction or to state an off ense. (empha sis added). Eleventh Circuit Case N o. 06-14954. 2 3Els o fi le d an a m en de d n ot ic e o f ap pe al to ch al le ng e th e co urt’s ru li ng s o f Aug us t

14 an d No ve m

be r 27
. W e th erea fte r co ns ol id at edth e ap pe al s. We firs t co ns id er

3 Els o’s ap pe al of t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f th e Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) m ot io n a nd , in li gh t o f ou r di sp os it io n o f th atap pe al , th enad dr es s El so ’s app eal of t he de ni al of th e rec us al m ot io n. II. Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) au th or iz es th e d is tri ctco urts , “ atan y ti m e whi le th e cas e is pe nd in g,” to he ar a cl ai m th atth e in di ct m en t fa il s t o i nv ok e th e co urt’s jur is di ct io n
orto st at e an off

en se . Elso ’s cas e en de d, an d was no lo ng er p en di ng , inDecem be r 20 05 , when th e m an da te is su edin Uni te d S ta te s v . Els o. Se e 4 22 F.3d13 05 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Els o a rg ue s t ha t t he cas e d idno t en d u nt il Aug us t 2 1, 2 00 6, wh enth e Supr em e Co urt d en ie d re he ari ng of i ts de ni al of El so ’s pet it io n fo r certi or ari . He is wron g fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, h is Apri l 1 0, 2 00 6 p et it io n t o t he Supr em e Co urt fo r a wri t o f certi or ari di d n otop erat e to nu ll ify or s us pe ndth e eff ectof t hi s

Eleventh Circuit Case N o. 07-10094. The a mended notice of appe al also cha lleng ed 3 the district court’s or der de nying E lso’s motion for rec onsideration of the August 14 order, which the cour t entere d on November

28, 2006, as we ll as two other orde rs. B eca use Elso does not expressly ref er to these other orde rs in his openingbrief, he has aba ndoned his cha lleng es to them to the extent his arguments on those order s do not overlap with his properly prese nted challeng es to the district court’ s order s denying the motion for relief from judgment or the rec usal motion. Davis v. Coca-Cola B ottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 972 (11th Cir. 2008) (“It is well settled in this circ uit that an argument not included in the appe llant’s openingbrief is deeme d abandone d.”). 4co urt’s m an da te inUni te d S ta te s v . Els o. See Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 4 1( c) (“ The 4
m an da te is effe ct iv e whe n i ss ue d.” ). Seco nd , ass um in g t ha t t he m an da te ha d n ot is su ed , inwhi ch ev en t t he cas e wou ldno t h av e en de d u nt il th e Supr em e Co urt di sp os edof h is pe ti ti on fora writof c ert io rari , Els o c an no t av oi d t he factth atth e Co urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on , th us cert ai nl y en di ng th e cas e, on May 15, 2 00 6 – twen ty-eig htda y s b efo re h e m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt fo r Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) rel ie f. Els o wo ul d a vo idsu chfin al it y by poi nt in g o utth athe pe ti ti on edth e Supr em e Co urt fo r reh eari ng an d t ha t t he Co urt d idno t d en y hi s p et it io n fo r reh eari ng un ti l Aug us t 2 1, 2 00 6, s ev en ty day s af te r he fil edhi s R

ul e 1 2( b) (3 )(B) m ot io n. Th e pe ti ti on forreh eari ng , ho wev er, g ai ne d h im no th in g b ecau se ne it he r th e Co urt n or a Ju st ic e su sp en de d t he ord er d en y in g t he writ . Sup rem e Co urt Ru le 16 .3, Dis po si tio n o f a Pet iti on for a W ri t of Certi or ar i , st at es , inrel ev an t p art : Whe ne ve r th e Co urt d en ie s a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f certi or ari , th e Cl erk wil l p rep are, s ig n, an d e nt er an ord er t o t ha t ef fectan d wi ll no ti fy fo rth wit h c ou ns el of r eco rdan d t he co urt wh os e jud gm en t was so ug ht to be rev ie wed . The o rd er o f de ni al wil l n otbe su sp en de d p en di ng di sp os it io n o f a p et it io n fo r reh eari ng ex cep t b y ord er o f th e Co urt o r a Ju st ic e. Inth atth e Co urt’s o rd er d en y in g t he writof c ert io rari was n otsu sp en de d p en di ng

Elso could have pe titioned the court to stay the issuanceof the mandate while he 4 petitioned the Supreme Court for a wr it of cer

tiorari, F ed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2) , but he did not do so. Nor did he e ver pe tition t his court to rec all the mandate . See 11th Cir. R. 41-1. 5th e d is po si ti on of El so ’s pet it io n fo r reh eari ng , un de r th is ass um edsce na rio , th e

cas e en de d, atth e la te st , on May 15, 2 00 6, b efo re Els o fi le d h is Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B)
m ot io n. The di stric t co urt l ack edau th or it y to he ar Els o’s Ru le 12 (b )(3 )(B) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m

jud gm en t. The ord er d en y in g t he m ot io n i s af firm edfor

th at
reas on . III. Els o’s Dec em

be r 29 , 20 06 ap pe al is als o m eri tl es s. Si nc e n o c as e was pe nd in g b efo re the di st ric t co urt o n Oct ob er 2 0, 2 00 6, wh enEls o m ov edth e co urt to recu se , th e co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to en te rta inth e m ot io n o r an y of t he m at te rs
as so ci at edwith i t, wh ic h, fo r th e co nv en ie nc e o f th e rea de r, we ha ve om it te d fr om th is op in io n. Th e ru li ng s ch al le ng edin th e Dece m be r 29 ap pe al are af

firm edon th e g ro un d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to gra ntth e rel ie f Els o s ou gh t. AFFIR MED.

6