United States v. Willie Reed, Jr. , 404 F. App'x 464 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11315 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 10, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE BUD REED, JR.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(December 10, 2010)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Bud Reed, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, (1) his motion to revisit the denial of his request
for a new trial, filed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 (hereafter “the Rule 33 motion”), and (2)
a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying his
Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 motion for return of property (hereafter “the Rule 60(b) motion”).
Reed argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing these motions
for lack of jurisdiction because his collateral Rule 33 and Rule 60(b) motions
addressed distinct and separate issues from those in his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) appeal
pending with this Court, and the district court therefore erred in concluding that the
§ 3582(c)(2) appeal divested it of jurisdiction to rule on the collateral motions. After
careful review, we vacate and remand.
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de
novo. United States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998). “The
filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance -- it confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over
those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Thompson v. RelationServe Media,
Inc., 610 F.3d 628, 638 n.14 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “The general rule
regarding divestiture of jurisdiction, however, does not apply to collateral matters not
2
affecting the questions presented on appeal.” Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 172
F.3d 771, 773 (11th Cir. 1999).
Here, Reed’s notice of appeal filed in December 2009 requested review only
of the denial of his motions to reconsider his § 3582 motion to reduce sentence. The
motions related to Rule 60 and Rule 33 that Reed subsequently filed with the district
court attacked his conviction and requested the return of his property -- separate and
distinct from the issues raised in his notice of appeal on the § 3582 sentencing issue.
See Thompson, 610 F.3d at 638 n.14. Consequently, Reed’s filing of a notice of
appeal on the denial of his motions to reconsider his § 3582 motion did not divest the
district court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of his collateral Rule 33 and Rule
60(b) motions, as those matters were unrelated to the questions presented in his §
3582(c)(2) appeal. See Weaver, 172 F.3d at 773.
Accordingly, because the district court erred in concluding that Reed’s appeal
from the denial of his motions for reconsideration of his § 3582(c)(2) motion divested
it of jurisdiction to consider his unrelated Rule 33 and Rule 60(b) motions, we vacate
the dismissal order and remand for determination of the merits of these motions. We
note that we express no opinion whatsoever as to the procedural or substantive merit
of Reed’s claims contained in these motions.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3