United States v. Audie Craig Singletary
665 F. App'x 757
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Audie Singletary, federal prisoner serving 292 months for cocaine conspiracy, filed two post-judgment filings in 2015: a § 3582(c)(2) motion (Amendment 782) and a pro se letter challenging his career-offender classification from his 2006 sentencing.
- The district court denied the letter motion on September 17, 2015, denied a timely reconsideration motion on September 29, 2015, and denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion on October 22, 2015.
- Singletary filed a second motion for reconsideration of the letter ruling; the court denied it on February 3, 2016 as presenting no new reason to reconsider.
- Singletary signed and delivered a notice of appeal to prison officials on February 18, 2016, specifying appeal of only the February 3, 2016 order, but his appellate briefs challenged the October 22, 2015 § 3582(c)(2) denial.
- The government argued the appeal was untimely as to all orders except the February 3, 2016 denial; the court reviewed timeliness de novo under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of appeal was timely for the Sept. 17, 2015 letter denial and Sept. 29, 2015 reconsideration denial | Singletary did not contest timeliness for these orders in briefing | Government: no notice filed within Rule 4(b)(1)(A) 14-day or the additional 30-day extension period | Dismissed as untimely for those orders |
| Whether notice of appeal was timely for Oct. 22, 2015 § 3582(c)(2) denial | Singletary’s brief challenges this order on appeal | Government: no timely notice within 14-day or 30-day extension; February 2016 filing is beyond Rule 4(b)(4) | Dismissed as untimely for the § 3582(c)(2) order |
| Whether appeal of Feb. 3, 2016 denial of second reconsideration is properly before the court and merits review | Singletary’s notice expressly appealed the Feb. 3 order | Government does not contest timeliness as to Feb. 3 order | Appeal timely as to Feb. 3 order; issues raised in briefs regarding that order are abandoned; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412 (11th Cir. 1992) (timely motion for reconsideration tolls appeal period in criminal cases)
- United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1976) (Supreme Court rule that tolling applies to postjudgment motions in criminal cases)
- United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (Rule 4(b) time limits must be applied when government objects to untimely notice)
- United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315 (11th Cir. 1983) (court may remand for excusable neglect/good cause within Rule 4(b)(4) 30-day extension)
- United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of whether an appeal is untimely)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment)