Court Opinion

ID: 9953506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 14:00:37.776971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:14.107019
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13324    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13324
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ALTIUS WILLIX,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr-00211-RAL-JSS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13324      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13324

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Altius Willix, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
       following the district court’s denial of his post-judgment Federal
       Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B) motion for an extension of
       time to file an attached Rule 34(a) motion to arrest the judgment
       against him. Willix argues that the district court erred in denying
       his motion as the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the orig-
       inal judgment against him due to inconsistencies between the in-
       dictment and the jury instructions and verdict forms, and as any
       delay in the filing of the motion was excusable due to the failure of
       his former counsel to raise the issue. Rather than responding, the
       government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, arguing
       that Willix failed to provide good cause for the seven-year gap be-
       tween the entry of judgment and the filing of the instant motion.
       The government further argues that the alleged errors identified
       by Willix lacked merit and that, even if they were meritorious, they
       would not have deprived the district court of jurisdiction.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as where “the position of one of the parties is
       clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
USCA11 Case: 23-13324         Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2024         Page: 3 of 6

       23-13324                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v.
       Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161–62 (5th Cir. 1969). 1
              We review questions of the district court’s subject matter
       jurisdiction de novo, even if raised for the first time on appeal.
       United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2023. “We
       may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not re-
       lied upon by the district court.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d
       1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). “Pro se
       pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
       drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
       Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
               District courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving “of-
       fenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
       “[A]ll that is necessary to vest the district court with jurisdiction” is
       for a valid indictment to charge a defendant with a federal crime.
       United States v. McLellan, 958 F.3d 1110, 1118 (11th Cir. 2020). Al-
       leged errors in the jury instructions, including assertions that the
       district court omitted an element or constructively amended the
       charged offense, are not treated as jurisdictional defects to be re-
       viewed de novo, but instead are subject only to plain error review
       where the defendant failed to raise the issue before the district
       court. See id. at 1119 (reviewing for plain error a defendant’s argu-
       ment on appeal that the district court impermissibly omitted an

       1 We are bound by decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

       Circuit issued before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206
       (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-13324      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13324

       element of the offense from the jury instructions); see also United
       States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1319–22 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing
       for plain error a defendant’s argument on appeal that the district
       court’s jury instruction constructively amended the charged of-
       fense).
              Under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), a defendant violates the statute
       if he “forcibly assaults” a federal officer or employee “while en-
       gaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” 18
       U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). If the defendant’s acts “constitute only simple
       assault,” he will be “imprisoned not more than one year.” Id.
       § 111(a). If the defendant’s acts “involve physical contact with the
       victim of the assault or the intent to commit another felony,” the
       defendant will be “imprisoned not more than 8 years.” Id. If the
       defendant “uses a deadly or dangerous weapon . . . or inflicts bodily
       injury,” he will be “imprisoned not more than 20 years.” Id.
       § 111(b). We have held that § 111 establishes three separate crimes
       because the first two crimes are set forth in § 111(a) and the third is
       contained within the enhanced penalty provision of § 111(b), and
       thus, § 111 is divisible. United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278, 1286
       (11th Cir. 2020).
              Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), no individual may knowingly or
       intentionally possess with intent to distribute a controlled sub-
       stance. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). An individual who attempts or con-
       spires to knowingly or intentionally possess with intent to distrib-
       ute a controlled substance is subject to the same penalties as those
       prescribed for the offense. Id.; 21 U.S.C. § 846.
USCA11 Case: 23-13324      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       23-13324               Opinion of the Court                         5

              Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a
       defendant to move to arrest the judgment against him if the court
       does not have jurisdiction over the charged offense. Fed. R. Crim.
       P. 34(a). This motion, however, must be filed within 14 days after
       the court accepts a verdict or finding of guilty, or after the defend-
       ant pleads either guilty or nolo contendere. Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(b).
       However, a district court may extend this deadline after it has al-
       ready expired, but only “if the party failed to act because of excus-
       able neglect.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(1)(B).
              As an initial matter, it is unclear on what basis the district
       court denied Willix’s motion as the paperless order lacked an ex-
       planation. However, we may affirm for any reason supported by
       the record, even if not relied upon by the district court. Al-Arian,
       514 F.3d at 1189.
               Here, the district court did not err in denying Willix’s mo-
       tion. It is uncontested that Willix’s superseding indictment charged
       him with federal crimes, namely with violations of 18 U.S.C.
       § 111(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846. Thus, the
       district court had jurisdiction to hear the case. McLellan, 958 F.3d
       at 1118; 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Despite Willix’s assertions, his argument
       that the district court erred by, in essence, constructively amending
       the charged offenses was not jurisdictional in nature. McLellan, 958
       F.3d at 1119; Madden, 733 F.3d at 1319–22. Thus, even assuming
       arguendo that the district court’s contested actions were errors, re-
       lief was not available under Rule 34(a) as the errors did not impact
       the district court’s jurisdiction over the case. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
USCA11 Case: 23-13324     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2024    Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                 23-13324

       34(a). Accordingly, as the relief sought by Willix in the underlying
       motion was unavailable to him, the district court did not err in
       denying his motion for an extension of time to file.
              Consequently, the government’s position is clearly correct
       as a matter of law, no substantial question exists as to the outcome
       of the case, and it is entitled to summary affirmance. See Groendyke
       Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Therefore, we GRANT the govern-
       ment’s motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM the district
       court’s denial of Willix’s motion.
             AFFIRMED.