Court Opinion

ID: 9392971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 19:00:40.271125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.167144
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13611    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/08/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13611
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DERRICK MILLER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20836-PCH-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13611         Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 05/08/2023         Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       22-13611

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Derrick Miller, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the District
       Court for the Southern District of Florida’s order denying1 his 28
       U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion
       for reconsideration. The government has moved for summary af-
       firmance.
              In April 2021, Miller filed his original § 2255 motion. The
       District Court denied that motion on July 5, 2022. Miller appealed
       the District Court’s denial and this Court denied a certificate of ap-
       pealability. On August 8, 2022, Miller filed the instant motion, ti-
       tled “Petition to vacate sentence for violation of petitioner’s due
       process and equal protection provision in his Sixth Amendment
       right to confront his accuser(s) in light of Hemphill v. New York.”
       The District Court denied the petition after construing it as a sec-
       ond or successive § 2255 motion to vacate and finding that Miller
       had not received permission from this Court to file such a motion.
             Miller then filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration,
       which the District Court denied, again finding that it lacked subject

       1 While the district court should have dismissed rather than denied the case
       for lack of jurisdiction, we may construe a denial as a dismissal where appro-
       priate, and have done so when the district court lacked jurisdiction. Cf. Cani
       v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (construing a dismissal as
       a denial because the district court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and
       should have denied the defendant’s motion on the merits).
USCA11 Case: 22-13611      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-13611               Opinion of the Court                         3

       matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition because it was a second
       or successive § 2255 motion. Miller timely appealed. The govern-
       ment did not file a brief, instead moving for summary affirmance.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or 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,
       1161–62 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary aﬃrmance post-
       pones the due date for the ﬁling of any remaining brief until this
       Court rules on the motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
               When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion,
       we review questions of law de novo and factual ﬁndings for clear
       error. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We
       review a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo. United
       States v. Perez, 956 F.2d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir. 1992). “Federal courts
       are obligated to look beyond the label of a pro se inmate’s motion
       to determine if it is cognizable under a diﬀerent statutory frame-
       work.” United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir.
       2003).
              Section 2255 allows federal prisoners to obtain post-convic-
       tion relief and set aside prior convictions if they were “imposed in
       violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28
       U.S.C. § 2255. A federal prisoner may collaterally attack the legality
USCA11 Case: 22-13611      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13611

       of his sentence by ﬁling a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28
       U.S.C. § 2255. “Only a single § 2255 motion is authorized and suc-
       cessive attempts at relief are limited.” Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d
       1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014). “[T]o ﬁle a second or successive § 2255
       motion, the movant must ﬁrst ﬁle an application with the appro-
       priate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
       consider it.” Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.
       2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “Without authorization, the dis-
       trict court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive pe-
       tition.” Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216.
              Here, we grant summary aﬃrmance as to the District
       Court’s denial of Miller’s motion. The District Court did not err
       when it construed Miller’s petition as an unauthorized second or
       successive § 2255 motion as Miller raised an additional claim that
       was available to him when he ﬁled his initial § 2255 motion. See 28
       U.S.C. § 2255. Miller’s motion was titled “Petition to Vacate Sen-
       tence,” which indicates that it was a new motion to challenge his
       conviction. Because he did not obtain permission from this Court
       to ﬁle a successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdic-
       tion to consider his motion. See Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216.
              Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary aﬃr-
       mance is clearly correct as a matter of law. Groendyke Transp., Inc.,
       406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.