USA v. Samuel Knowles

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13787
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:00-cr-00425-JIC-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL KNOWLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 30, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-13787 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before WILSON, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Knowles appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new
trial, filed more than twelve years after his 2008 convictions on charges of
conspiracy to commit drug offenses. The district court sua sponte denied the
motion as untimely.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that “[u]pon the defendant’s
motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Where, as here, a motion is not based
on newly discovered evidence, it “must be filed within 14 days after the verdict or
finding of guilty.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2). The Supreme Court explained in
Eberhart v. United States that the timeliness of a Rule 33 motion is a claim-
processing rule rather than a jurisdictional rule, and the government can forfeit its
defense of untimeliness if it fails to raise the defense before the district court
reaches the merits of the Rule 33 motion. See 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005) (per curiam).
But neither Eberhart nor any precedent of which we are aware precludes a district
court from applying the claim-processing rule set forth in Rule 33 to determine sua
sponte that a motion is untimely. Nor does Knowles make that contention.
USCA11 Case: 20-13787 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Knowles moved for a new trial twelve years too late and did not present a
reason for the delay. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua
sponte denying his motion as untimely. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2).
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-13787 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --