USA v. Michael Ray Alford

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13020
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. 5:16-cr-00028-RH-MAL-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13020 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13020
Before JILL PRYOR , BRANCH, and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Alford, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s order denying her motion for an evidentiary
hearing on issues raised in her previously denied 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion. The Government moved for summary affirmance, argu-
ing the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the mo-
tion for an evidentiary hearing because Alford had already appealed
the denial of her § 2255 motion to this Court, and there was noth-
ing pending in the district court to which Alford could be entitled
to an evidentiary hearing.
Summary disposition 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 frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke
Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).1 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. See 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.”).
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-13020 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13020 Opinion of the Court 3
Summary affirmance is warranted because Alford’s appeal is
frivolous. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The district
court did not err in denying the motion because there were no is-
sues pending for which the court could have granted an evidentiary
hearing. See Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349. Accordingly, because the ap-
peal is frivolous, we GRANT the Government’s motion for sum-
mary affirmance.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13020 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 02/26/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --