USA v. Jamaal Abu Talib Hameen

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12234
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMAAL ABU TALIB HAMEEN,
a.k.a. Charles Flowers,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00115-MMH-JBT-1
USCA11 Case: 23-12234 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12234
____________________
Before J ILL PRYOR , B RANCH, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jamaal Hameen, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for re-
consideration of its denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 motion to depose
various witnesses, and its denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for
sanctions, which he filed in his completed criminal proceedings.
The government, in turn, moves for summary affirmance and to
stay briefing.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
sues 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,
1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary affirmance post-
pones the due date for the filing of any remaining brief until we
rule on the motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c). An appeal is frivolous
when the party is not entitled to relief because there is no basis in
fact or law to support their position. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346,
1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable
merit either in law or fact.”).
USCA11 Case: 23-12234 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-12234 Opinion of the Court 3
We review the denial of a Rule 59 motion for reconsidera-
tion for an abuse of discretion. Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d
1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 1998) (civil). We similarly review the denial
of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion. Huins
v. Lueder, Larkin & Hunter, LLC, 39 F.4th 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2022)
(civil). “A district court abuses its discretion when it bases ‘its ruling
on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assess-
ment of the evidence.’” Id. (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990) (civil)). “It is elementary that the burden is
on the appellant[] to show error.” Murphy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 314 F.2d 30, 31 (5th Cir. 1963) (civil).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedure
in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district
courts . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Rule 27(b)(1) provides that “[t]he
court where a judgment has been rendered may, if an appeal has
been taken or may still be taken, permit a party to depose witnesses
to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further pro-
ceedings in that court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b)(1). The motion must
show the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony
of each deponent, and the reasons for perpetuating the testimony.
Id. 27(b)(2)(A), (B). However, we have held that Rule 1 “unambig-
uously provides that ‘[t]hese rules govern procedure in the United
States district courts in all suits of a civil nature . . . ,’” and cannot
be used to challenge orders entered in a criminal case. United States
v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (addressing where an
appellant sought to set aside, via a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, a
criminal forfeiture imposed as part of his sentence). We have
USCA11 Case: 23-12234 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12234
similarly held that proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
are criminal in nature, and, therefore, the rules of civil procedure
cannot be used. United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir.
2003). Notably, however, forms of post-conviction relief, such as
habeas corpus proceedings, are civil in nature. Id.
Here, we grant the government’s motion for summary affir-
mance because Hameen’s appeal is frivolous. Groendyke Transp.,
Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The district court correctly found that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have no application to provide re-
lief in Hameen’s closed criminal case. See Mosavi, 138 F.3d at 1366;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion
in denying both his motion for reconsideration and his motion for
sanctions. See Lockard, 163 F.3d at 1267; Huins, 39 F.4th at 1345.
Further, Hameen’s arguments, that the district court erred by fail-
ing to look beyond the label of his motion and that his Rule 27 mo-
tion was proper, in that he sought to perpetuate testimony for a
future § 2255 motion, are ultimately meritless. Bilal, 251 F.3d
at 1349. Specifically, Rule 27 allows, in civil cases, for the deposition
of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of
further proceedings in that court, while here, Hameen’s criminal
case is, and was, closed, and there were no further proceedings
pending in the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b)(1). Further, a
future § 2255 motion would not be a “further proceeding in that
court,” as filing such a motion would generate a new, separate civil
case. See id.; see also Fair, 326 F.3d at 1318.
USCA11 Case: 23-12234 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-12234 Opinion of the Court 5
Accordingly, Hameen’s appeal is frivolous, so we GRANT
the government’s motion for summary affirmance.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-12234 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --