David O. Edwards v. United States

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 19, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-10359
CLERK
D. C. Docket Nos. 06-01964 CV-T-24-MSS
03-00249-CR-T-24-MSS
DAVID O. EDWARDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
(September 19, 2008)
Before DUBINA, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant David O. Edwards (“Edwards”), a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s sua sponte denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time barred
and the district court’s subsequent denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to set
aside the judgment.
In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s findings of
fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Garcia v. United States,
278 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2002).
“The decision to alter or amend a judgment is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court.” Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir.
2006). Thus, we review the district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion for an abuse of discretion. Id.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we hold that the district court did not err in finding that
Edwards’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was untimely. Because the district court
found that Edwards’s petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court was
untimely, the petition did not toll the time for filing his § 2255 motion. Second,
we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion because he failed to meet the standard for relief under
the Rule. Specifically, Edwards did not demonstrate that the documents he
2
attached to his Rule 59(e) motion had been unavailable to him prior to the denial
of his § 2255 motion. Because we conclude that there is no merit to any of the
arguments Edwards makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s judgment
denying Edwards’s § 2255 motion and the order denying his Rule 59(e) motion to
set aside the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3