United States v. Priscilla Ann Ellis

U

Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10282 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr-00502-JSM-AEP-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (August 4, 2020) Before GRANT, LUCK and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Priscilla Ann Ellis appeals from the district court’s denial of seven post- conviction motions for the removal of Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 2 of 5 on her custodial sentence, along with other relief. On appeal, the government has moved to dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, for summary affirmance in part, and to stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of its motion. I. The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Priscilla Ellis appealed from the district court’s order denying seven miscellaneous motions generally related to altering the SAMs imposed on her current custodial sentence. Nonetheless, portions of her merits brief on appeal appear to challenge the validity of her underlying convictions and sentences. To the extent these issues involving the validity of her convictions and sentences were raised in Ellis’s brief, we dismiss this appeal as duplicative because those issues are or have been the subject of other appeals. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) (noting “that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits”); United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) 1 (noting that an “[a]ppellant is not entitled to two appeals”). The government’s remaining arguments in support of dismissal are denied. 1 We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 2 Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 3 of 5 II. 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). “[W]e may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). We do not consider …

Original document

Add comment

By Tucker

Recent Posts

Recent Comments