Case Name: Handy BAILEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-16
Citations: 307 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 08-10034-JJ
Parties: Handy BAILEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 401–403

Head Matter:
Handy BAILEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-10034-JJ
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 16, 2009.
Handy Bailey, Jr., Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner-Appellant Handy Bailey, Jr. ("Bailey"), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court's summary denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 ("Rule 33") Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence. The District Court denied his untimely motion without explanation. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
On 18 December 1997, Bailey was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced him to 360 months in prison followed by 96 months of supervised release. In the following years, Bailey filed several post-conviction motions.
On 12 April 2007, Bailey filed a Rule 33 Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence. According to Rule 33, Bailey had three years to file this motion. The last date on which he properly could have filed it was 18 December 2000.
The District Court denied the motion sua sponte and did not indicate the basis on which it made its decision. On appeal, Bailey argues that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to explain why it denied the motion.
Motions for a new trial are reviewed for abuse of discretion. U.S. v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th Cir.1985). District courts are responsible for rendering reasoned decisions, and this Court has remanded where a one-sentence summary denial denied the "opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate review." Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091-92 (11th Cir.2007). This Court has remanded 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases when the district court summarily denied them. See, e.g., Broadwater v. U.S., 292 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir.2002). But this Court has also said that not every summary denial needs more explanation, and some § 2255 motions may be clearly without merit. Id. This Court may affirm a lower court ruling on any ground supported by the record. U.S. v. Mejia, 82 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir.1996).
This motion was untimely by at least five years and is therefore clearly without merit, and we affirm its dismissal on that ground.
AFFIRMED.