Court Opinion

ID: 9930376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 19:01:08.943076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:33.455180
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12234    Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 02/06/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12234
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JAMAAL ABU TALIB HAMEEN,
       a.k.a. Charles Flowers,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00115-MMH-JBT-1
USCA11 Case: 23-12234      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 02/06/2024     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12234

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jamaal Hameen, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for re-
       consideration of its denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 motion to depose
       various witnesses, and its denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for
       sanctions, which he filed in his completed criminal proceedings.
       The government, in turn, moves for summary affirmance and to
       stay briefing.
              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 we
       rule on the motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c). 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. 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.”).
USCA11 Case: 23-12234       Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 02/06/2024      Page: 3 of 5

       23-12234                Opinion of the Court                            3

               We review the denial of a Rule 59 motion for reconsidera-
       tion for an abuse of discretion. Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d
       1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 1998) (civil). We similarly review the denial
       of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion. Huins
       v. Lueder, Larkin & Hunter, LLC, 39 F.4th 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2022)
       (civil). “A district court abuses its discretion when it bases ‘its ruling
       on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assess-
       ment of the evidence.’” Id. (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
       496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990) (civil)). “It is elementary that the burden is
       on the appellant[] to show error.” Murphy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
       Ins. Co., 314 F.2d 30, 31 (5th Cir. 1963) (civil).
              The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedure
       in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district
       courts . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Rule 27(b)(1) provides that “[t]he
       court where a judgment has been rendered may, if an appeal has
       been taken or may still be taken, permit a party to depose witnesses
       to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further pro-
       ceedings in that court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b)(1). The motion must
       show the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony
       of each deponent, and the reasons for perpetuating the testimony.
       Id. 27(b)(2)(A), (B). However, we have held that Rule 1 “unambig-
       uously provides that ‘[t]hese rules govern procedure in the United
       States district courts in all suits of a civil nature . . . ,’” and cannot
       be used to challenge orders entered in a criminal case. United States
       v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (addressing where an
       appellant sought to set aside, via a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, a
       criminal forfeiture imposed as part of his sentence). We have
USCA11 Case: 23-12234      Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 02/06/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12234

       similarly held that proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
       are criminal in nature, and, therefore, the rules of civil procedure
       cannot be used. United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir.
       2003). Notably, however, forms of post-conviction relief, such as
       habeas corpus proceedings, are civil in nature. Id.
               Here, we grant the government’s motion for summary aﬃr-
       mance because Hameen’s appeal is frivolous. Groendyke Transp.,
       Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The district court correctly found that the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have no application to provide re-
       lief in Hameen’s closed criminal case. See Mosavi, 138 F.3d at 1366;
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion
       in denying both his motion for reconsideration and his motion for
       sanctions. See Lockard, 163 F.3d at 1267; Huins, 39 F.4th at 1345.
       Further, Hameen’s arguments, that the district court erred by fail-
       ing to look beyond the label of his motion and that his Rule 27 mo-
       tion was proper, in that he sought to perpetuate testimony for a
       future § 2255 motion, are ultimately meritless. Bilal, 251 F.3d
       at 1349. Speciﬁcally, Rule 27 allows, in civil cases, for the deposition
       of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of
       further proceedings in that court, while here, Hameen’s criminal
       case is, and was, closed, and there were no further proceedings
       pending in the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b)(1). Further, a
       future § 2255 motion would not be a “further proceeding in that
       court,” as ﬁling such a motion would generate a new, separate civil
       case. See id.; see also Fair, 326 F.3d at 1318.
USCA11 Case: 23-12234   Document: 16-1   Date Filed: 02/06/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-12234            Opinion of the Court                    5

             Accordingly, Hameen’s appeal is frivolous, so we GRANT
       the government’s motion for summary aﬃrmance.
             AFFIRMED.