USCA11 Case: 21-14264 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-14264
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NAYEF AMJAD QASHOU,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00364-ECM-KFP-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14264 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-14264
Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Nayef Amjad Qashou appeals the district court’s
order denying his pro se motion to reconsider the denial of a post-
judgment motion. In his post-judgment motion, Qashou alleged
the government breached the plea agreement he entered following
his conviction for making a false statement to a federal agency.
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm
the district court’s order denying Qashou’s motion to reconsider.
I.
The record reflects that Qashou was originally convicted in
2020. The government entered into a plea agreement with Qashou
that the district court rejected. Qashou entered a second plea
agreement with the government, in which the government
recommended a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guideline
range. The district court accepted the second plea agreement.
After the district court sentenced him, Qashou did not appeal.
In June 2021, Qashou, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in his
criminal case and asked the district court to declare the
government breached his plea agreement, and he argued that his
conviction should be set aside on the grounds of ineffective
assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. At one point,
he also asked the court to “release” him from the “illegal contract.”
The district court denied Qashou’s motion shortly thereafter,
however, finding that it was unclear, and that he had not filed a
USCA11 Case: 21-14264 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 3 of 6
21-14264 Opinion of the Court 3
motion to vacate pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Qashou did not
appeal this order, either.
Nevertheless, Qashou did belatedly file a motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order on his June motion.
Qashou later filed a
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting substantially
similar claims as the ones asserted in his June motion. The district
court denied the motion for reconsideration, noting, in part, that
Qashou did not argue that there was an intervening change in the
law or that he had newly discovered evidence for the court to
consider, and noting that his § 2255 motion was the appropriate
vehicle for his claims. This appeal followed.
II.
Qashou argues on appeal that his plea agreement should be
voided in the interests of justice due to ineffective assistance of
counsel and the government’s breach of his plea agreement.
Nevertheless, he does not, in his initial brief, explicitly challenge
the denial of his motion for reconsideration or the reasons given
for denying the same.
When appropriate, we will review the denial of a motion for
reconsideration in a criminal action for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Simms,
385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir.
2004). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect
legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the
determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly
erroneous.” United States v. Harris,
989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir.
2021) (quotation marks omitted). We will review de novo whether
USCA11 Case: 21-14264 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-14264
the government breached the plea agreement. United States v. De
La Garza,
516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008).
We will generally not consider non-jurisdictional arguments
that are forfeited on appeal, however. United States v. Campbell,
26 F.4th 860, 872-73 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, ___U.S. ___,
143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). Specifically, any “issue that an appellant wants
the Court to address should be specifically and clearly identified in
the brief. . .. Otherwise, the issue . . . will be considered
abandoned.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d 1324, 1330
(11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellant
fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not “plainly and
prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d
678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted) (discussing
abandonment). Also, we will not consider issues raised for the first
time in a reply brief. See Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
Cir. 2008) (deeming “issues . . . raised for the first time in a . . .
litigant's reply brief” abandoned).
We construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. Alba v.
Montford,
517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, we
“can affirm on any basis supported by the record, regardless of
whether the district court decided the case on that basis.” See
Martin v. United States,
949 F.3d 662, 667 (11th Cir. 2020).
III.
We conclude from the record that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Qashou’s motion to reconsider its
denial of a post-judgment motion in which Qashou alleged the
USCA11 Case: 21-14264 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 5 of 6
21-14264 Opinion of the Court 5
government breached his plea agreement. Initially, we conclude
that the record demonstrates that Qashou has abandoned the one
issue on appeal – whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for reconsideration – by failing to identify it in
his brief. See Alba,
517 F.3d at 1252; Access Now, Inc.,
385 F.3d at
1330; Sapuppo,
739 F.3d at 681. Although he addresses the issue in
his reply brief, that is insufficient. See Timson,
518 F.3d at 874.
Further, if full appellate review is appropriate, we conclude
that Qashou fails to show that the denial of his motion for
reconsideration was an abuse of discretion. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that the government breached its agreement to
recommend that the district court sentence Qashou at the bottom
of the advisory guideline range. The government made the agreed
upon recommendation, and the district court sentenced him in
conformity with the agreement. Rather, Qashou seems to argue
that the government breached the first plea agreement, which the
district court did not accept, and, thus, could not be breached. In
his motion for reconsideration, and now on appeal, Qashou fails to
show how the district court applied “an incorrect legal standard,
followed improper procedures in making the determination, or
[made] findings of fact that [were] clearly erroneous.” Harris, 989
F.3d at 911. Thus, Qashou is not entitled to relief on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 21-14264 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-14264
Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we
affirm the district court’s order denying Qashou?s motion for
reconsideration.1
AFFIRMED.
1 We note that Qashou has filed a motion for relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, and
it remains pending before the district court. We express no opinion herein
about the merits or lack thereof of that motion.
