Court Opinion

ID: 9964893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 13:01:23.586857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:46.785662
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12380    Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12380
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       WINSKY MONDESTIN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80078-DMM-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12380      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12380

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The appellant, Winsky Mondestin, is a federal prisoner serv-
       ing a total 240-month sentence for his role in a July 2006 armed
       robbery of an armored van in Boca Raton, Florida. In 2023,
       roughly eight years after his convictions and total sentence became
       ﬁnal, he ﬁled a motion demanding either proof that his indictment
       had been returned in open court or dismissal of the indictment for
       lack of jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, noting
       that the “[s]uperseding [i]ndictment was returned in open court by
       grand jury on July 12, 2011.” Mondestin appeals, and the govern-
       ment moves for summary aﬃrmance. We grant that motion and
       aﬃrm.
              Summary disposition of an appeal is “warranted where,
       among other circumstances, . . . the result is clear as a matter of
       law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome,”
       Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1076 n.6 (11th Cir. 2019), or
       where “the appeal is frivolous,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406
       F.2d 1158, 1161, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
               A defendant may move to dismiss an indictment for lack of
       jurisdiction “at any time while the case is pending.” Fed. R. Crim.
       P. 12(b)(2). A case is no longer “pending” within the meaning of
       Rule 12 after we issue our mandate on direct appeal. United States
       v. Elso, 571 F.3d 1163, 1166 (11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v.
       Diveroli, 729 F.3d 1339, 1341–44 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussing Elso and
USCA11 Case: 23-12380         Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 05/01/2024         Page: 3 of 4

       23-12380                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       concluding that a district court was divested of jurisdiction to con-
       sider a motion to dismiss while a defendant’s direct appeal was
       pending). In Elso, six months after we aﬃrmed the defendant’s con-
       victions and sentences on direct appeal and issued our mandate,
       the defendant moved to dismiss his indictment for lack of subject-
       matter jurisdiction as to one conviction. 571 F.3d at 1165. We af-
       ﬁrmed the denial of the defendant’s motion because his case ended
       and “was no longer pending.” Id. at 1166.
              Summary aﬃrmance is appropriate here because the gov-
       ernment is clearly correct as a matter of law. There is no substan-
       tial question whether the district court erred in denying Mondes-
       tin’s post-conviction motion for proof that his indictment was re-
       turned in open court or to dismiss the indictment. See Brown, 942
       F.3d at 1076 n.6. Mondestin’s convictions and total sentence have
       been ﬁnal since 2015, when we issued our mandate aﬃrming his
       sentences and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. 1 Because his
       case “was no longer pending” under Rule 12(b) when Mondestin
       ﬁled his post-conviction motion, the district court did not err in
       denying the motion. See Elso, 571 F.3d at 1165.

       1  In 2013, on direct appeal, we vacated one count of conviction under 18
       U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), affirmed Mondestin’s convictions on the remaining four
       counts, and remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Mondestin, 535
       F. App’x 819, 824 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 1183 (2014). After our
       mandate issued, the district court resentenced Mondestin on the remaining
       counts to a total term of 240 months in prison. We issued our mandate af-
       firming the sentence in 2015, see United States v. Aurelhomme, 598 F. App’x 645
       (11th Cir. 2015), and the Supreme Court denied review, see 572 U.S. 992 (2015).
USCA11 Case: 23-12380       Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024      Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   23-12380

             Because the government’s position is clearly correct as a
       matter of law, we GRANT the motion for summary aﬃrmance. 2
              AFFIRMED.

       2 We DENY Mondestin’s motion for default judgment.      The government
       timely filed its motion for summary affirmance, which stayed the briefing
       schedule. See 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).