Court Opinion

ID: 9915832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 19:01:09.039268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:43.912894
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12714    Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 01/08/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12714
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ADRIAN TREMAYNE WILSON,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60212-RS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12714      Document: 12-1       Date Filed: 01/08/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12714

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Adrian Wilson appeals pro se the denial of two post-convic-
       tion motions to dismiss his indictment for lack of jurisdiction. Fed.
       R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). The United States moves for summary affir-
       mance. We grant that motion and affirm.
              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, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
              We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction.
       United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889, 902 n.6 (11th Cir. 1992).
               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
       concluding that a district court was divested of jurisdiction to con-
       sider a motion to dismiss while a defendant’s direct appeal was
USCA11 Case: 23-12714     Document: 12-1      Date Filed: 01/08/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-12714               Opinion of the Court                        3

       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 because the United
       States is clearly correct as a matter of law. There is no substantial
       question whether the district court erred in denying Wilson’s
       post-conviction motions to dismiss his indictment for lack of juris-
       diction. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Wilson’s case
       “was no longer pending” under Rule 12(b) when we issued our
       mandate aﬃrming his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
       Elso, 571 F.3d at 1165. The district court did not err.
             Because the position of the United States is clearly correct
       as a matter of law, we grant the motion for summary aﬃrmance.
       Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
             AFFIRMED.