Court Opinion

ID: 9918714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 16:01:01.866157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:48.495273
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11930    Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11930
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CRAIG SIZER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20715-BB-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11930         Document: 18-1         Date Filed: 01/16/2024          Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        23-11930

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Craig Sizer, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s de-
       nial of his motion for compassionate release and the denial of his
       motion for reconsideration of that order because the district court
       did not wait for him to reply to the Government’s response before
       denying the motion for compassionate release. 1 The Government
       responds by moving for summary affirmance, arguing Sizer aban-
       doned any argument regarding the district court’s finding he was
       not entitled to compassionate release, the district court properly
       found that Sizer did not present extraordinary and compelling rea-
       sons for granting release, and the district court did not abuse its
       discretion in denying Sizer’s motion before he replied to the Gov-
       ernment’s response. After review, 2 we affirm the district court.
              The local rules for the Southern District of Florida provide
       that a reply to a response opposing a motion must be ﬁled within
       seven days after the response is ﬁled and served. S.D. Fla. Local
       Rule 7.1(c)(1). Time is computed in accordance with the applicable

       1 We do not address Sizer’s arguments regarding the district court’s denial of

       his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct his sentence as
       that issue is addressed in a separate appeal.
       2 We review a district court’s application of its local rules for an abuse of dis-
       cretion. United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2015). We re-
       view the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United
       States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 23-11930         Document: 18-1          Date Filed: 01/16/2024          Page: 3 of 4

       23-11930                   Opinion of the Court                                  3

       federal rules of procedure. Id. Under the Federal Rules of Crimi-
       nal Procedure, a party who receives service by mail has an addi-
       tional three days to ﬁle a reply. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c) (providing
       an additional three days to respond for parties who receive service
       by mail under Rule 49(a)(4)(C)). When a party serves his opponent
       by mail, service is complete upon mailing. Fed. R. Crim. P.
       49(a)(4)(C). We “will not typically second-guess the district court’s
       interpretation of its own Rule regarding timeliness in an eﬀort to
       avoid undermining the goal of those standards that local rules seek
       to establish.” United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228, 1247 (11th Cir.
       2015) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
              The Government is clearly correct as a matter of law that
       the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sizer’s mo-
       tion for compassionate release before Sizer replied. 3 See Groendyke
       Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 4 (explaining
       summary disposition is appropriate 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”). Under the

       3 Sizer does not argue on appeal that the district court erred in finding he did

       not state extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release, so he aban-
       doned any argument regarding that finding. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
       870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating we review pro se pleadings liberally, but issues
       not briefed on appeal are abandoned).
       4 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),

       this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
       cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-11930      Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11930

       district court’s local rules, Sizer had ten days to ﬁle a reply from the
       time the Government mailed its response. S.D. Fla. Local Rule
       7.1(c)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(a)(4)(C). And
       15 days passed from May 10th, when the Government mailed its
       response, until May 25th, when the district court entered its order.
       The district court did not apply an incorrect legal standard or make
       a clear error of judgment in applying its local rule on timeliness
       and deciding to rule on Sizer’s motion without his reply. See
       McLean, 802 F.3d at 1233.
              And the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
       the motion for reconsideration because there was no evidence the
       arguments presented in Sizer’s reply brief would have changed the
       outcome of his motion for compassionate release. His proposed
       reply discussed the sentencing disparities with his codefendants and
       his rehabilitation, which the district court had already found were
       not extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate re-
       lease because they were not recognized under § 1B1.13. U.S.S.G.
       § 1B1.13; United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1248, 1263, 1265
       (11th Cir. 2021). Therefore, his reply would not have changed the
       outcome of the court’s order.
              Accordingly, because the Government’s position is clearly
       correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the motion for summary
       aﬃrmance and AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Sizer’s motion
       for compassionate release and the denial of his motion for recon-
       sideration of that order. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.