Court Opinion

ID: 9385550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 14:00:32.839234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.689060
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11640    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 04/07/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11640
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       MAYNARD SANDERS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00358-LGW-CLR-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11640    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 04/07/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                     Opinion of the Court               22-11640

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11808
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       MAYNARD SANDERS,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00011-WTM-CLR-1
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Maynard Sanders, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
       peals following the district court’s denial of his two motions for
USCA11 Case: 22-11640         Document: 20-1        Date Filed: 04/07/2023         Page: 3 of 6

       22-11640                   Opinion of the Court                                   3

       reconsideration of its earlier denials of compassionate release,
       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), pursuant to § 603 of the First Step Act, 1
       in his two separate criminal cases. See generally United States v.
       Sanders, 744 F. App’x 641 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming
       Sanders’ 78-month sentence following his conviction for posses-
       sion of a firearm by a felon); United States v. Sanders, 756 F. App’x
       917 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming Sanders’ 186-month
       sentence following his convictions on several counts of bank fraud,
       aggravated identity theft, and aiding and abetting theft by a bank
       employee). In this appeal, Sanders argues that: (1) the district court
       abused its discretion by denying his motions for reconsideration as
       time-barred; and (2) as an alternative, the district court should have
       liberally construed each of his motions for reconsideration as a sup-
       plemental motion for compassionate release. After careful review,
       we affirm.
              We normally review the denial of a motion for reconsidera-
       tion in a criminal appeal for abuse of discretion. United States v.
       Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). When we review for
       abuse of discretion, it “means that the district court had a ‘range of
       choice’ and that we cannot reverse just because we might have
       come to a different conclusion . . . .” United States v. Harris, 989
       F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted). Where, how-
       ever, a defendant fails to raise an issue in the district court, we re-
       view for plain error only. United States v. Innocent, 977 F.3d 1077,

       1 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”).
USCA11 Case: 22-11640      Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11640

       1081 (11th Cir. 2020). To establish plain error, the defendant must
       show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substan-
       tial rights. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir.
       2007). If the defendant satisfies these conditions, we may exercise
       our discretion to recognize the error only if it seriously affects the
       fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
               We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Campbell v. Air Ja-
       maica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). We’ve held in the
       28 U.S.C. § 2255 context that courts “have an obligation to look
       behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine
       whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different reme-
       dial statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622,
       624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). However, regardless of the context, all lit-
       igants must comply with the applicable procedural rules, and we
       will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party, or . . . rewrite an
       otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Camp-
       bell, 760 F.3d at 1168–69 (quotations omitted).
               Although a motion for reconsideration in a criminal action
       is not expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce-
       dure, the timely filing of such a motion will toll the time for filing
       a notice of appeal, with the time beginning to run anew following
       disposition of the motion. See United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6,
       8–9 (1976); United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412, 1413–14 (11th
       Cir. 1992). A motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be
       filed within the time allotted for filing a notice of appeal, however,
       in order to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Fed. R.
USCA11 Case: 22-11640      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-11640               Opinion of the Court                         5

       App. P. 4(b); Vicaria, 963 F.2d at 1414. Thus, a criminal defendant
       must file a motion for reconsideration within 14 days of the order
       or judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
       ing Sanders’s motions for reconsideration. Simms, 385 F.3d at
       1356. For starters, both of these motions were untimely. Sanders
       first moved for compassionate release in August 2020, in his case
       involving his convictions for bank fraud, aggravated identity theft,
       and theft by a bank employee. When the district court denied this
       motion in October 2020, Sanders did not move for reconsideration
       until April 2022. Sanders also moved for compassionate release in
       his other criminal case -- this one involving his conviction for being
       a felon in possession of a firearm -- in November 2020. This time,
       the district court denied his motion for compassionate release in
       May 2021, and he did not move for reconsideration until May 2022.
       Because a criminal defendant must file a motion for reconsidera-
       tion within 14 days of the order from which reconsideration is
       sought, and because Sanders did not move for reconsideration until
       over a year later in both instances, neither of Sanders’s motions
       were timely. Vicaria, 963 F.2d at 1413–14.
              Sanders now argues to our Court that the district court
       should have alternatively construed his motion for reconsideration
       as a supplemental motion for compassionate release. Because
       Sanders makes this argument for the first time on appeal, we re-
       view it for plain error, and we can find none. Sanders has offered
       no authority holding that a district court is obligated to sua sponte
USCA11 Case: 22-11640      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11640

       reconstrue a motion for reconsideration as a supplemental motion
       for compassionate release. Moreover, because the First Step Act
       does not prohibit a prisoner from filing successive motions for
       compassionate release, Sanders cannot show that his substantial
       rights were affected by the district court’s failure to sua sponte con-
       strue his motions as motions for compassionate release. Thus, the
       district court did not plainly err in denying these motions.
              Accordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.