Court Opinion

ID: 9898823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 15:00:43.677345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:25.831858
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14264    Document: 59-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-14264
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       NAYEF AMJAD QASHOU,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00364-ECM-KFP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14264     Document: 59-1         Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  21-14264

       Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Appellant Nayef Amjad Qashou appeals the district court’s
       order denying his pro se motion to reconsider the denial of a post-
       judgment motion. In his post-judgment motion, Qashou alleged
       the government breached the plea agreement he entered following
       his conviction for making a false statement to a federal agency.
       After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm
       the district court’s order denying Qashou’s motion to reconsider.
                                            I.
              The record reflects that Qashou was originally convicted in
       2020. The government entered into a plea agreement with Qashou
       that the district court rejected. Qashou entered a second plea
       agreement with the government, in which the government
       recommended a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guideline
       range. The district court accepted the second plea agreement.
       After the district court sentenced him, Qashou did not appeal.
              In June 2021, Qashou, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in his
       criminal case and asked the district court to declare the
       government breached his plea agreement, and he argued that his
       conviction should be set aside on the grounds of ineffective
       assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. At one point,
       he also asked the court to “release” him from the “illegal contract.”
       The district court denied Qashou’s motion shortly thereafter,
       however, finding that it was unclear, and that he had not filed a
USCA11 Case: 21-14264      Document: 59-1          Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 3 of 6

       21-14264                Opinion of the Court                           3

       motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Qashou did not
       appeal this order, either.
              Nevertheless, Qashou did belatedly file a motion for
       reconsideration of the district court’s order on his June motion.
       Qashou later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting substantially
       similar claims as the ones asserted in his June motion. The district
       court denied the motion for reconsideration, noting, in part, that
       Qashou did not argue that there was an intervening change in the
       law or that he had newly discovered evidence for the court to
       consider, and noting that his § 2255 motion was the appropriate
       vehicle for his claims. This appeal followed.
                                             II.
              Qashou argues on appeal that his plea agreement should be
       voided in the interests of justice due to ineffective assistance of
       counsel and the government’s breach of his plea agreement.
       Nevertheless, he does not, in his initial brief, explicitly challenge
       the denial of his motion for reconsideration or the reasons given
       for denying the same.
              When appropriate, we will review the denial of a motion for
       reconsideration in a criminal action for an abuse of
       discretion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir.
       2004). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect
       legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the
       determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly
       erroneous.” United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir.
       2021) (quotation marks omitted). We will review de novo whether
USCA11 Case: 21-14264      Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  21-14264

       the government breached the plea agreement. United States v. De
       La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008).
               We will generally not consider non-jurisdictional arguments
       that are forfeited on appeal, however. United States v. Campbell,
       26 F.4th 860, 872-73 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, ___U.S. ___,
       143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). Specifically, any “issue that an appellant wants
       the Court to address should be specifically and clearly identified in
       the brief. . .. Otherwise, the issue . . . will be considered
       abandoned.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330
       (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellant
       fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not “plainly and
       prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d
       678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted) (discussing
       abandonment). Also, we will not consider issues raised for the first
       time in a reply brief. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
       Cir. 2008) (deeming “issues . . . raised for the first time in a . . .
       litigant's reply brief” abandoned).
             We construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. Alba v.
       Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, we
       “can affirm on any basis supported by the record, regardless of
       whether the district court decided the case on that basis.” See
       Martin v. United States, 949 F.3d 662, 667 (11th Cir. 2020).
                                            III.
              We conclude from the record that the district court did not
       abuse its discretion in denying Qashou’s motion to reconsider its
       denial of a post-judgment motion in which Qashou alleged the
USCA11 Case: 21-14264     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       21-14264               Opinion of the Court                        5

       government breached his plea agreement. Initially, we conclude
       that the record demonstrates that Qashou has abandoned the one
       issue on appeal – whether the district court abused its discretion in
       denying his motion for reconsideration – by failing to identify it in
       his brief. See Alba, 517 F.3d at 1252; Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at
       1330; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Although he addresses the issue in
       his reply brief, that is insufficient. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
               Further, if full appellate review is appropriate, we conclude
       that Qashou fails to show that the denial of his motion for
       reconsideration was an abuse of discretion. There is nothing in the
       record to indicate that the government breached its agreement to
       recommend that the district court sentence Qashou at the bottom
       of the advisory guideline range. The government made the agreed
       upon recommendation, and the district court sentenced him in
       conformity with the agreement. Rather, Qashou seems to argue
       that the government breached the first plea agreement, which the
       district court did not accept, and, thus, could not be breached. In
       his motion for reconsideration, and now on appeal, Qashou fails to
       show how the district court applied “an incorrect legal standard,
       followed improper procedures in making the determination, or
       [made] findings of fact that [were] clearly erroneous.” Harris, 989
       F.3d at 911. Thus, Qashou is not entitled to relief on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 21-14264        Document: 59-1         Date Filed: 11/15/2023        Page: 6 of 6

       6                         Opinion of the Court                      21-14264

             Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we
       affirm the district court’s order denying Qashou?s motion for
       reconsideration.1
              AFFIRMED.

       1 We note that Qashou has filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and

       it remains pending before the district court. We express no opinion herein
       about the merits or lack thereof of that motion.