Case: 19-13503 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13503
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-tp-60050-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHNNY SLAUGHTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 23, 2020)
Before GRANT, HULL, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Slaughter, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his motion to reduce his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P.
Case: 19-13503 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 2 of 4
35(a). The government has moved for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing
schedule. Slaughter has moved for summary judgment.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such
as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where
rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
We review questions of the district court’s jurisdiction de novo. United States
v. Phillips,
597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n.9 (11th Cir. 2010). We may affirm for any reason
supported by the record. United States v. Chitwood,
676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir.
2012). Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. See United States v.
White,
593 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (11th Cir. 2010).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) provides that the district court may
correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error
within 14 days after sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The time limit in Rule 35(a)
is jurisdictional. See Phillips,
597 F.3d at 1196.
Here, as an initial matter, Slaughter’s motion for summary judgment, in which
he argues that he is entitled to relief because the government missed the deadline to
2
Case: 19-13503 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 3 of 4
file its brief on appeal, is due to be denied because the government asked for and
received an extension of the filing deadline before Slaughter filed his motion.
Next, the government’s argument is correct as a matter of law and there is no
substantial question about the outcome of the appeal. See Davis,
406 F.2d at 1162.
First, Slaughter has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his
Rule 35 motion because he does not raise any argument about it on appeal. See
White,
593 F.3d at 1204 n.3. Rather, he makes different sentencing and conviction
arguments on appeal than he made in his Rule 35 motion. To the extent that he seeks
to challenge orders or judgments other than the district court’s dismissal of his Rule
35 motion through his arguments on appeal, we will not consider such challenges
because Slaughter did not specify any other orders or judgments in his notice of
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).
Even if Slaughter had not abandoned the issue, however, the government is
correct as a matter of law that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his
Rule 35 motion because it was not timely. See Phillips,
597 F.3d at 1196. A district
court may only correct or reduce a sentence under Rule 35(a) within 14 days of the
pronouncement of the sentence, and Slaughter filed his motion more than 2 years
after his sentence was pronounced in July 2017. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
Accordingly, the district court was without power to modify Slaughter’s sentence
3
Case: 19-13503 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 4 of 4
under Rule 35(a) and correctly dismissed his motion for lack of jurisdiction. See
Phillips,
597 F.3d at 1196.
Thus, there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and the
government’s position is correct as a matter of law. See Davis,
406 F.2d at 1162.
Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
Slaughter’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and the government’s
motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
4
