USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13269
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID CILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:12-cr-60262-KAM-1 and 0:15-cv-60498-KAM
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13269
Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED in part. Defendant Cilla had requested that the district
court direct Lexis/Nexis to remove from its site a particular deci-
sion it had previously published. The district court declined to do
so, noting that Lexis/Nexis is a private company and that the court
had no authority to order a private company to remove infor-
mation from its data base. [Case No. 12-cr-60262 at Doc. No. 129;
Case No. 15-cv-60498 at Doc. No. 46].
In his appellant’s brief to this Court, Cilla now acknowledges
the correctness of the district court’s conclusion and no longer asks
the district court to direct a private company to remove material
from its data base. The Government has moved for summary af-
firmance, and Cilla’s concession means that the Government’s mo-
tion is clearly due to be granted as to this particular request origi-
nally made by Cilla in his district court litigation. Accordingly, the
Government’s motion for summary affirmance as to this part of
Cilla’s appeal is GRANTED.
In his appellant’s brief, however, Cilla also indicates that he
continues to request that the district court seal a particular docu-
ment in the district court’s own record of his case. The district
court did not rule on this particular request. The court’s inaction
is somewhat understandable given that the record in Cilla’s crimi-
nal case, Case No. 12-cr-60262, does not even contain this
USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 3 of 4
21-13269 Opinion of the Court 3
document. Another possible reason for the absence of a ruling is
the failure of Cilla to denominate in the caption of his motion this
specific relief he seeks on appeal, although the body of the motion
does make a passing request that the district court remove this doc-
ument from PACER, which, under all the circumstances here, can
arguably be read as a request that the court seal the document.
Were we dealing only with the docket for the criminal case,
it would then be a simple matter to say that, although not ad-
dressed by the district court, Cilla’s motion is due to be denied, as
the document he wishes to be sealed is nowhere found in the
docket for his criminal case. Yet, there is a second docket relating
to Cilla’s criminal conviction, and that docket refers to Case Num-
ber 0:15-cv-60498-KAM. This second docket includes pleadings re-
lated to Cilla’s successful § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assis-
tance by Cilla’s trial counsel based on the latter’s failure to file an
appeal of the sentence imposed by the district court on Cilla. Cilla’s
success on this motion enabled him to file what would ordinarily
have been an untimely notice of appeal. 1 Of moment to the pre-
sent litigation is the fact that the document that Cilla now asks to
be sealed is found, unsealed, within this second docket. The district
court’s ruling on Cilla’s motion to direct Lexis/Nexis to remove
from its site a particular decision it had previously published is now
found within this 2015 docket at Document Number 46, just as it
is found in the 2012 docket. The underlying motions on which the
1In its subsequent ruling on that appeal, this Court affirmed Cilla’s conviction
and sentence.
USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13269
court ruled, found at Document Numbers 43 and 44 in the 2015
docket, are sealed.2 Cilla appealed the district court’s ruling filed in
both the 2012 and the 2015 dockets.
As the district court has not yet ruled on Cilla’s motion to
seal the particular document at issue, we REMAND this case to the
district court to rule on this matter in the first instance. The plead-
ings presently under seal in the district court and this Court shall
remain under seal pending the district court’ s ruling.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
2 Those same motions are labeled as Document Numbers 125 and 126 in the
2012 criminal case docket. They are likewise sealed in that docket.
