United States v. Michael Ray Alford

USCA11 Case: 22-13456 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13456
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL RAY ALFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:02-cr-00008-RH-CAS-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13456 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13456
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ray Alford, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed a motion in the district court seeking leave to amend a mo-
tion she filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging her conviction.1
She filed the motion to amend in 2022, approximately 15 years
after the district court had denied with prejudice her original
§ 2255 motion. The district court treated Alford’s proposed
amendment as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 mo-
tion and denied the motion to amend. Alford appealed, challeng-
ing the district court’s decision. The government, in turn, moves
for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s motion.
I.
In 2002, Alford pled guilty to transporting visual depictions
of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in interstate
commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), and was sen-
tenced to 57 months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year
term of supervised release. She also was required to register as a
sex offender.
In 2004, Alford filed a § 2255 motion seeking to vacate her
conviction. She raised numerous challenges, including that she
received ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2007, the district
1 Alford is a transgender woman who uses she/her/hers pronouns.
USCA11 Case: 22-13456 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 3 of 5
22-13456 Opinion of the Court 3
court denied the § 2255 motion with prejudice, determining that
Alford’s ineffective assistance claims lacked merit. Both the dis-
trict court and this Court denied Alford a certificate of appealabil-
ity.
In 2021, Alford filed an application seeking authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion raising ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. A panel of this Court denied the application be-
cause Alford was seeking to raise the same claims that the district
court had rejected when it denied her original § 2255 motion.
In 2022, Alford filed a motion in the district court to amend
her original § 2255 motion. She argued that the amendment
would “clarify and amplify” the ineffective assistance of counsel
claims that she had raised in her original § 2255 motion. Doc. 162
at 1. 2 The district court denied the motion to amend, describing
the proposed amendment as an “attempted end-run around the
prerequisites to a second or successive § 2255 motion.” Doc. 165
at 1–2.
This is Alford’s appeal. After Alford filed her appellant’s
brief, the government moved for summary affirmance.
II.
Summary disposition is appropriate where time is of the es-
sence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are
2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-13456 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13456
involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied.” Groen-
dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 3 It
also is appropriate 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 fre-
quently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Id.Alford argues that the district court erred in denying her
motion to amend. We review the denial of a motion to amend a
§ 2255 motion for abuse of discretion. Farris v. United States,
333 F.3d 1211, 1214 (11th Cir. 2003).
Alford sought to amend her original § 2255 motion many
years after the district court had denied the original § 2255 motion
with prejudice. The district court properly treated the proposed
amendment as a second or successive § 2255 motion. See Hubbard
v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2004) (construing
prisoner’s filing, which was labeled as an amended § 2254 habeas
petition, as a second or successive petition when the amended pe-
tition was filed several years after the district court had denied the
prisoner’s original habeas petition).
We also agree with the district court that the proposed
amendment was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255
motion. Before a second or successive § 2255 motion may be filed
3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down before October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-13456 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 5 of 5
22-13456 Opinion of the Court 5
in the district court, a prisoner must receive authorization from
the appropriate court of appeals allowing the district court to con-
sider the motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A); 2255(h). Because Al-
ford’s proposed amendment was an unauthorized second or suc-
cessive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to re-
view the amendment. See Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216 (“Without au-
thorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a sec-
ond or successive [§ 2255 motion]”). Accordingly, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alford’s motion seek-
ing leave to file the proposed amendment.
Summary affirmance is warranted here because the gov-
ernment’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law. Groendyke
Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, we GRANT the gov-
ernment’s motion for summary affirmance.
AFFIRMED.