Case: 18-10295 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10295
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20796-DLG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTON LEMAR DAMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 17, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-10295 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Anton Lemar Dames, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s omnibus order denying several motions to compel the production of
documents and witnesses. After review, 1 we affirm.
Although the district court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
entertain Dames’ motions, his briefing does not address that issue. We hold pro se
pleadings to a less stringent standard than counseled pleadings, liberally construing
them “to discern whether jurisdiction to consider [a] motion can be founded on a
legally justifiable base.” Fernandez v. United States,
941 F.2d 1488, 1491 (11th
Cir. 1991). But when a pro se litigant does not raise an argument in his brief, it is
abandoned. Ballard v. Johnson,
821 F.2d 568, 569 n.1 (11th Cir. 1987). By
failing to present argument regarding the district court’s determination that it
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, Dames abandoned the issue on appeal.
Even if Dames had preserved the issue for appeal, we would affirm. Dames
sought relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a
movant to seek relief from a final judgment or order on various grounds. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b). But, as the district court noted, Rule 60(b) “does not provide relief
from judgment in a criminal case.” United States v. Mosavi,
138 F.3d 1365, 1366
(11th Cir. 1998). Federal prisoners may seek relief from their convictions and
1
We review issues of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Williams v. Chatman,
510
F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007) (reviewing the dismissal of a Rule 60(b) motion construed as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition).
2
Case: 18-10295 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 3 of 3
sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Assuming Dames was seeking relief under
§ 2255, he was required to seek and receive authorization from this Court. 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Dames did not do so. Farris v. United States,
333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the district court did not err in
concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Dames’ motions.
AFFIRMED.
3
