[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12737

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MICHAEL MEYERS, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00460-PGB-PRL

USCA11 Case: 22-12737 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12737

____________________

Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Meyers, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. We granted a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) as to the following issue: “Did Meyers’ trial counsel provide ineffective assistance, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668 (1984), by conceding Meyers’ guilt as to the theft charge during 

closing arguments?” However, the majority of Meyers’ brief argues that counsel was ineffective for conceding to a trespass charge 

and he only mentions the theft charge one time, in passing. 

When evaluating a district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition, 

we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de 

novo, and findings of fact for clear error. Tanzi v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of 

Corr., 772 F.3d 644, 651 (11th Cir. 2014).

The scope of review in a habeas appeal is limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 

1250 (11th Cir. 1998). Documents filed by pro se litigants are to be 

liberally construed and must be held to less stringent standards 

than documents drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

106 (1976). Nevertheless, pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th 

Cir. 2007). Further, liberal treatment of pro se pleadings “does not 

give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to 

USCA11 Case: 22-12737 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 2 of 3
22-12737 Opinion of the Court 3

rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica, 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 

2014). An appellant abandons any argument not briefed before us, 

made in passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or 

authority. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 

(11th Cir. 2004); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 

681 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Here, most of Meyers’ brief is beyond our review because it 

does not address the issue specified in the COA. Murray, 145 F.3d 

at 1250. We granted a COA as to the following issue only: “Did 

Meyers’ trial counsel provide ineffective assistance, under Strickland . . . by conceding Meyers’ guilt as to the theft charge during 

closing arguments?” However, the majority of Meyers’ brief argues that counsel was ineffective for conceding to the trespass 

charge and he only mentions the theft charge one time, in passing. 

And, in that instance, Meyers makes no argument regarding the 

theft charge but, instead, simply quotes counsel’s language from 

closing argument. Although we liberally construe Meyers’ arguments, we cannot serve as de facto counsel to rewrite the deficiencies in his pleadings. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Albra, 490 F.3d at 829;

Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168-69. Accordingly, he has abandoned any 

challenge to the certified question by failing to properly brief it on 

appeal and we affirm. Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1330.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-12737 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 3 of 3