Court Opinion

ID: 9398580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 19:01:05.564219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.665143
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14052    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 05/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14052
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL D. BEITER, JR.,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60273-WPD-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14052      Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 05/31/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-14052

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               In 2013, a jury convicted Michael Beiter, Jr., of conspiracy to
       defraud the United States and multiple counts of false and fictitious
       claims upon the United States, and he was sentenced to 300
       months’ imprisonment. Most recently in November 2022, Beiter
       filed a pro se “motion for definitive ruling and correction of the
       record,” in which he sought to have the record in his case
       “corrected” to reflect that Beiter “fired” his court-appointed
       counsel, Clark Mervis, and that Mervis did not represent him
       during the criminal proceedings. The district court denied the
       motion, noting that “Mervis was appointed to represent Beiter, and
       he did the best job that he could with an extremely difficult client.”
       The district court explained that “[a]though Beiter attempted to
       fire Mervis, he would not hire another lawyer, he would not
       represent himself, and he gave no reason for the [c]ourt to believe
       that Mervis was under-performing or that another lawyer would
       do a better job.” Accordingly, Mervis remained counsel of record.
       Beiter now appeals the district court’s ruling, arguing that the
       district court erred in denying his request to correct the record.
              In response, the government moved for summary
       affirmance of the district court’s order, arguing that the appeal is
       frivolous. Beiter opposes the motion.
              Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
       one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
USCA11 Case: 22-14052         Document: 20-1         Date Filed: 05/31/2023         Page: 3 of 3

       22-14052                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
       as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke
       Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 An appeal
       is frivolous when the party is not entitled to relief because there is
       no basis in fact or law to support their position. See Bilal v. Driver,
       251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A claim is frivolous if it is
       without arguable merit either in law or fact.”).
             Here, despite Beiter’s contentions to the contrary, the
       record reflects correctly that Mervis represented Beiter as his court-
       appointed counsel throughout the underlying criminal
       proceedings. Therefore, Beiter’s appeal of the district court’s order
       denying his motion to correct the record is frivolous and the
       government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED.2
       Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.

       1 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)
       (holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior
       to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).
       2 Beiter also requests that this case be consolidated with other appeals he has
       filed in case nos. 22-11733 and 22-11978, and that this appeal be heard initially
       en banc. Those motions are DENIED.