Sholam Weiss v. Warden
703 F. App'x 789
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Weiss was convicted in absentia on multiple counts and sentenced to 845 years; he fled the U.S. and was later extradited from Austria subject to Austria refusing extradition on the obstruction count (Count 93).
- The U.S. government asked the district court to resentence Weiss without Count 93 based on the principle of specialty; the district court initially denied jurisdiction to modify sentences.
- Weiss filed a § 2241 petition alleging the U.S. misrepresented the relief Austria expected upon extradition; the district court considered Austrian communications and in 2009 removed Count 93 and resentenced Weiss to 835 years; this Court affirmed.
- In 2016 Weiss moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the 2009 judgment based on a new Austrian diplomatic letter he said clarified Austria expected a full resentencing; he argued the letter justified reopening under Rule 60(b)(6).
- The district court treated the motion as falling under Rule 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and denied it as untimely; it alternatively rejected 60(b)(6) relief as unwarranted. Weiss appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Rule 60(b) ground: whether 2016 Austrian letter is "newly discovered evidence" (60(b)(2)) or "any other reason" (60(b)(6)) | Weiss: the 2016 letter raises a distinct diplomatic clarification that warrants 60(b)(6) relief (not time-barred) | Government/District Ct: the letter is new evidence about Austria's expectations and thus fits 60(b)(2), which is subject to the one-year time limit | Court: motion properly construed as 60(b)(2); untimely, so denial affirmed |
| Abuse of discretion in denying 60(b)(6) relief / extraordinary circumstances | Weiss: even if 60(b)(6) applied, the diplomatic clarification presents extraordinary circumstances justifying reopening | Government/District Ct: Weiss already litigated Austria's expectations, received substantial relief, and the record does not show extraordinary circumstances | Court: even assuming 60(b)(6) possible, denial was not an abuse of discretion; no compelling justification to vacate judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 730 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary-circumstances requirement)
- Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000) (movant must show extraordinary circumstances for 60(b)(6))
- Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2006) (denial of 60(b) relief reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Real Property & Residence Located at Route 1, Box 111, Firetower Rd., Semmes, Mobile County, Ala., 920 F.2d 788 (11th Cir. 1991) (60(b)(6) inappropriate when relief fits subsections (1)–(5))
- Solaroll Shade & Shutter Co. v. Bio–Energy Sys., 803 F.2d 1130 (11th Cir. 1986) (same principle: 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) mutually exclusive)
- Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949) (example of extraordinary circumstances warranting 60(b)(6) relief)