USA v. Robert Lewis Morgan

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-10634
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20652-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

ROBERT LEWIS MORGAN,
a.k.a. Albert Johnson
a.k.a. Arthur Wilson
a.k.a. Edward Jones,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 29, 2020)
Case: 20-10634 Date Filed: 06/29/2020 Page: 1 of 3

2

Before WILSON, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Robert Lewis Morgan, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion in which
he sought to challenge his criminal convictions based on alleged Fourth and Fifth
Amendment violations. But, on appeal, Morgan does not argue about the alleged
Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations at all, much less challenge the bases for
the district court’s denial. Instead he argues, for the first time on appeal, that his
counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment because counsel
advised him to plead guilty to “knowingly” committing crimes when Morgan had
not in fact acted “knowingly.” He claims that he is innocent. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
To start, “[i]t is well established in this circuit that, absent extraordinary
circumstances, legal theories and arguments not raised squarely before the district
court cannot be broached for the first time on appeal.” Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d
1281, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009). As Morgan did not raise his ineffective assistance or
innocence arguments before the district court in his motion, we will not consider
them for the first time on appeal.
Further, “when an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal . . . the
grounds on which the district court based its [decision], he is deemed to have
Case: 20-10634 Date Filed: 06/29/2020 Page: 2 of 3

3

abandoned any challenge of [those] ground[s],” and affirmance is due. United
States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (alteration
adopted). Here, the district court denied Morgan’s motion because “Rule 60(b)
simply does not provide relief from judgment in a criminal case” and Morgan was
“attempting to circumvent filing an amended pleading in his pending 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 case.” Morgan did not challenge properly on appeal either of those
grounds. Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge of them, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-10634 Date Filed: 06/29/2020 Page: 3 of 3