Court Opinion

ID: 9945005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 20:00:49.481759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:19.792541
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13020    Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 02/26/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13020
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL RAY ALFORD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cr-00028-RH-MAL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13020         Document: 15-1        Date Filed: 02/26/2024         Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       23-13020

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael Alford, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s order denying her motion for an evidentiary
       hearing on issues raised in her previously denied 28 U.S.C. § 2255
       motion. The Government moved for summary affirmance, argu-
       ing the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the mo-
       tion for an evidentiary hearing because Alford had already appealed
       the denial of her § 2255 motion to this Court, and there was noth-
       ing pending in the district court to which Alford could be entitled
       to an evidentiary hearing.
               Summary disposition 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.” 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.”).

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

       this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
       cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-13020    Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 02/26/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-13020              Opinion of the Court                      3

              Summary affirmance is warranted because Alford’s appeal is
       frivolous. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The district
       court did not err in denying the motion because there were no is-
       sues pending for which the court could have granted an evidentiary
       hearing. See Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349. Accordingly, because the ap-
       peal is frivolous, we GRANT the Government’s motion for sum-
       mary affirmance.
             AFFIRMED.