Court Opinion

ID: 9893832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 18:01:11.498455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:42.217570
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14033    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 10/30/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14033
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RAEES QAZI,
       a.k.a. Shan,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60298-BB-1
USCA11 Case: 22-14033     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 10/30/2023    Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-14033

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              In 2015 in his criminal case, Raees Qazi was convicted of
       terrorism-related offenses. In a separate civil proceeding, Qazi
       unsuccessfully pursued 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. Then, back in his
       criminal case in 2022, Qazi filed a motion for relief from the
       judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
       After review, we conclude the district court correctly denied Qazi’s
       Rule 60(b)(6) motion because Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not available in
       a criminal case.
                               I. BACKGROUND
              Although the resolution of this appeal is fairly
       straightforward, it is helpful ﬁrst to summarize some of the
       procedural history of Qazi’s prior motions ﬁled pursuant to § 2255
       and Rule 60(b)(6).
       A.    Conviction and Original § 2255 Motion
              In 2015, Qazi pled guilty and was convicted of conspiring to
       provide material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
       § 2339A(a) (Count Two), attempting to provide material support
       to a foreign terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
       § 2339B(a)(1) (Count Five), and conspiring to forcibly assault a
       federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 111(a)(1), (b)
       (Count Six). The district court sentenced Qazi to 180 months on
       Count Two, 180 months on Count Five and 60 months on Count
USCA11 Case: 22-14033         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 10/30/2023         Page: 3 of 7

       22-14033                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       Six, all to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 420 months’
       imprisonment. Qazi did not ﬁle a direct appeal.
              In 2016, Qazi ﬁled a pro se motion to vacate his sentence
       pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Qazi’s § 2255 motion was docketed
       as a separate civil action, 16-CV-61177-BB, and all further pleadings
       relating to his § 2255 proceeding were also docketed in that civil
       action. 1
             Qazi’s § 2255 motion acknowledged that he had not
       appealed his judgment of criminal conviction. The § 2255 motion
       raised several claims, including ineﬀective-assistance-of-trial-
       counsel claims. But Qazi’s § 2255 motion did not argue that his trial
       counsel was ineﬀective for failing to ﬁle a direct appeal. The district
       court denied Qazi’s initial § 2255 motion on the merits. Qazi did
       not appeal.
       B.      Second § 2255 Motion
               In May 2022, Qazi ﬁled a pro se second § 2255 motion,
       arguing for the ﬁrst time that his trial counsel was ineﬀective for
       failing to ﬁle a direct appeal. Qazi’s § 2255 motion also argued he
       could prove his actual innocence to overcome his procedural
       default of this ineﬀective assistance claim.
              The district court dismissed Qazi’s second § 2255 motion for
       lack of jurisdiction because Qazi had not received permission from
       this Court to ﬁle a successive § 2255 motion. The district court

       1 The same district court judge in the Southern District of Florida presides over

       both Qazi’s criminal case and his § 2255 proceedings.
USCA11 Case: 22-14033         Document: 23-1          Date Filed: 10/30/2023          Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court                         22-14033

       denied Qazi’s subsequent Rule 60(b)(6) motion that he ﬁled as to
       this second § 2255 motion, reaﬃrming that Qazi’s second § 2255
       motion was unauthorized. Qazi appealed, but his appeal was later
       dismissed for want of prosecution. 2
       C.      Rule 60(b)(6) Motion Filed in Criminal Case
             In October 2022, Qazi ﬁled in his criminal case a motion for
       compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on the COVID-
       19 pandemic. The district court denied the motion, and Qazi
       appealed. 3
              A few weeks later, in November 2022, Qazi also ﬁled in his
       criminal case the Rule 60(b)(6) motion that is the subject of this
       appeal. 4 Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion sought an order “setting aside
       the judgement [sic] to deny his previously ﬁled § 2255 motion,”
       without identifying which previously ﬁled § 2255 motion. Qazi
       argued that extraordinary circumstances—his actual innocence
       and his trial counsel’s failure to ﬁle a direct appeal—warranted Rule
       60(b)(6) relief. Additionally, Qazi’s motion stated that: (1) Rule
       60(b)(6) was “the proper vehicle to set the court’s judgement [sic]
       aside”; (2) his claim was “cognizable only in a motion under Fed.
       R. Civ. P., Rule 60(b)(6)” and was not “actionable in a § 2255 post-

       2 In July 2022, Qazi filed a third pro se § 2255 motion, raising an issue unrelated

       to the issues in this appeal. The district court dismissed the motion as an un-
       authorized successive § 2255 motion, and Qazi did not appeal.
       3 This Court subsequently dismissed Qazi’s appeal of the denial of his motion

       for compassionate release for want of prosecution.
       4 Qazi included only his criminal case number on his Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
USCA11 Case: 22-14033          Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 10/30/2023           Page: 5 of 7

       22-14033                    Opinion of the Court                                  5

       conviction proceeding”; and (3) “[t]his motion may not be
       recharacterized as a second or successive § 2255 motion.”
            The district court summarily denied Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6)
       motion. This appeal followed.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
               Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party in a civil
       proceeding to seek relief or reopen a ﬁnal judgment or order for
       reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, or, as relevant
       here, for “any other reason that justiﬁes relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
       60(b)(6). To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the movant must
       show “that circumstances are suﬃciently extraordinary to warrant
       relief.” Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation
       marks omitted). However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do
       not apply to criminal cases, and this Court has held that “Rule 60(b)
       simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal
       case.” United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003).
               The district court did not err in denying Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6)
       motion. Qazi ﬁled his Rule 60(b)(6) motion in his criminal case,
       where the district court is unable to grant such relief. See id. at
       1318. 5

       5 Notably, while this appeal was pending, Qazi filed another Rule 60(b)(6)

       motion in his § 2255 proceeding. The district court denied the motion on the
       merits, explaining that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Qazi’s second § 2255
       motion because Qazi has never obtained this Court’s authorization to file a
       successive § 2255 motion raising a claim as to his trial counsel’s failure to file a
       direct appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-14033     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 10/30/2023    Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-14033

              Ordinarily, 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 framework.” United States v. Stossel, 348
       F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, however, Qazi’s motion
       speciﬁed that he was proceeding under only Rule 60(b)(6),
       explicitly denied proceeding under § 2255, and forbade the district
       court from recharacterizing his Rule 60(b)(6) motion as “a second
       or successive § 2255 motion.”
              Moreover, on appeal, Qazi continues to refer to his motion
       as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion and does not argue that the district court
       should have construed his motion as anything else. Thus, Qazi has
       abandoned any argument that his Rule 60(b)(6) motion should have
       been construed as a § 2255 motion. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
       870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a pro se litigant abandons
       a claim by failing to raise it on appeal).
              We reject the government’s argument that Qazi’s ﬁling of
       the notice of appeal in his criminal case as to the denial of his
       compassionate release motion divested the district court of
       jurisdiction over his subsequent Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The ﬁling
       of a notice of appeal “divests the district court of its control over
       those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Johnson v. 3M Co.,
       55 F.4th 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted).
       “The district court has authority to proceed forward with portions
       of the case not related to the claims on appeal.” Id. (quotation
       marks omitted). The claims in Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion were
       unrelated to the issues raised in his appeal of the denial of
USCA11 Case: 22-14033     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 10/30/2023    Page: 7 of 7

       22-14033              Opinion of the Court                        7

       compassionate release. Therefore, Qazi’s ﬁling of the notice of
       appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to consider
       the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. See id.
             AFFIRMED.