Court Opinion

ID: 9375756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 20:00:31.536091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.491183
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13353    Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 02/28/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13353
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       WAYNE BURCKS,
       a.k.a. Wayne Burkes,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cr-60330-WPD-1
USCA11 Case: 22-13353       Document: 15-1        Date Filed: 02/28/2023       Page: 2 of 4

       2                        Opinion of the Court                    22-13353

                              ____________________

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Wayne Burcks, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
       35 motion to correct an illegal sentence for lack of jurisdiction. He
       asserts the district court could not sua sponte raise the issue of its
       subject matter jurisdiction, the court erred when it denied his Rule
       35 motion, and the Government waived any opposition to his Rule
       35 motion by failing to object in the district court. The Govern-
       ment responds by moving for summary affirmance of the district
       court’s order denying Burcks’s Rule 35 motion and asserts the dis-
       trict court did not err in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to con-
       sider Burcks’s motion under both Rule 35, as it was untimely, and
       under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as it was an unauthorized successive
       § 2255 motion.
               The Government is entitled to summary affirmance of the
       district court’s order denying Burcks’s Rule 35 motion for a lack of
       subject matter jurisdiction because its position is clearly correct as
       a matter of law.1 Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,

       1 We review de novo whether a district court had the authority to resentence
       the defendant under Rule 35(a) and § 2255. United States v. Sjeklocha,
       114 F.3d 1085, 1087 (11th Cir. 1997).
USCA11 Case: 22-13353         Document: 15-1        Date Filed: 02/28/2023         Page: 3 of 4

       22-13353                   Opinion of the Court                               3

       1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 2 (stating summary disposition is appropriate,
       in part, 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”).
               First, Burcks’s Rule 35(a) motion was untimely as it was filed
       years after the district court imposed his sentence, which was far
       outside the 14-day window for filing a Rule 35(a) motion. See Fed.
       R. Crim. P. 35(a). The timely filing of a Rule 35(a) motion is a ju-
       risdictional prerequisite, so the district court did not err when it
       found it lacked jurisdiction to consider Burcks’s untimely Rule
       35 motion. See United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1196-97
       (11th Cir. 2010) (holding the time limitation in Rule 35(a) is juris-
       dictional, as there is no inherent authority for a district court to
       modify a sentence).
              Second, even construing Burcks’s motion as a § 2255 mo-
       tion, the district court did not err in finding it lacked jurisdiction to
       consider it because he failed to obtain prior authorization from this
       Court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See Farris v. United
       States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[T]o file a second
       or successive § 2255 motion, the movant must first file an applica-
       tion with the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing

       2 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: 22-13353      Document: 15-1       Date Filed: 02/28/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13353

       the district court to consider it.”). Thus, the district court did not
       have the jurisdiction to consider his construed successive
       § 2255 motion. Id. (“Without authorization, the district court lacks
       jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.”).
              Burcks’s argument the district court erred when it sua
       sponte raised the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction over his
       motion is without merit because the district court had the duty to
       ensure it had subject matter jurisdiction and it was permitted to do
       so sua sponte. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th
       Cir. 2001) (stating a federal court “must zealously insure that juris-
       diction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of sub-
       ject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
       about jurisdiction arises,” as it is “powerless to act beyond its stat-
       utory grant of subject matter jurisdiction”). Likewise, because sub-
       ject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, the Government did not
       waive the defense by failing to raise the issue below, and Burcks’s
       argument to the contrary fails. See United States v. De La Garza,
       516 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating subject matter jurisdic-
       tion cannot be waived).
             Therefore, we GRANT the government’s motion for sum-
       mary affirmance of the district court’s denial of Burcks’s pro se Rule
       35 motion and DENY as moot its motion to stay the briefing sched-
       ule.
              AFFIRMED.