USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1 of 6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10867 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
EDSON GELIN, a.k.a. Bo, Defendant- Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00131-CEM-LHP-3 ____________________
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Edson Gelin, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his post-judgment omnibus motions to USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 25-10867
arrest the judgment against him under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 34(a) and 45(b)(1)(B), and to immediately release him from custody. For the reasons which follow, we grant the govern- ment’s motion for summary affirmance. Mr. Gelin was charged and convicted of drug offenses, in vi- olation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and firearm offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal and then affirmed the denial of his post- trial motions. See United States v. Gelin, 810 F. App’x 712 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gelin, 2022 WL 10220112 (11th Cir. 2022). In this appeal, Mr. Gelin argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule 34(a) motion because the particular language used in the court’s jury instructions and verdict form impermissibly amended the indictment and deprived the court of jurisdiction. He also argues that he had established good cause and excusable ne- glect which justified an extension of the time to file his motion. The government has filed an amended motion for summary affirmance or to dismiss the appeal, solely to correct its prior incor- rect statement in its initial motion for summary affirmance or to dismiss the appeal that its motion was unopposed. 1
1 The government’s initial motion for summary affirmance, motion to dismiss,
and motion for an extension of time to file a response brief, which are super- seded by its amended motion, are DENIED AS MOOT. USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 3 of 6
25-10867 Opinion of the Court 3
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 mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where . . . the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review de novo questions of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even if raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2023). Pro se pleadings are held to a less-stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and are liberally construed. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). “[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) (quotation marks omitted). Rule 34(a) provides that, “[u]pon the defendant’s motion or on its own, the court must arrest judgment if the court does not have jurisdiction of the charged offense.” Judgment “can be ar- rested only on the basis of error appearing on the ‘face of the rec- ord,’ and not on the basis of proof offered at trial.” United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 281 (1970). A defendant must file a Rule 34(a) motion “within 14 days after the court accepts a verdict or finding of guilty, or after or after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(b). A district court may extend this deadline USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 25-10867
after it has already expired, but only “if the party failed to act be- cause of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(1)(B). District courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving “of- fenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. “[A]ll that is necessary to vest the district court with jurisdiction” is for a valid indictment to charge a defendant with a federal crime. See United States v. McLellan, 958 F.3d 1110, 1118 (11th Cir. 2020). Alleged errors in the jury instructions, including assertions that the district court omitted an element or constructively amended the charged offense, are not treated as jurisdictional defects to be re- viewed de novo, but instead are subject only to plain-error review on appeal if the defendant failed to raise the issue before the district court. See id. at 1118-19 (reviewing for plain error a defendant’s argument on appeal that the district court impermissibly omitted an element of the offense from the jury instructions); see also United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1319-22 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for plain error a defendant’s argument on appeal that the district court’s jury instruction constructively amended the charged of- fense). Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), no individual may knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance with intent to distrib- ute. An individual who attempts or conspires to knowingly or in- tentionally possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance is subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense. See §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), any person who USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 5 of 6
25-10867 Opinion of the Court 5
uses or carries a firearm during and in relation to any crime of vio- lence or drug-trafficking crime is subject to a mandatory consecu- tive term of imprisonment. As an initial matter, it is unclear on what basis the district court denied Mr. Gelin’s motion, as the court’s endorsed order lacked an explanation. But, as noted, we may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court. See Al-Arian, 514 F.3d at 1189. The district court did not err in denying Mr. Gelin’s motion to arrest his judgment under Rule 34(a). The government is clearly correct as a matter of law that his arguments are not cognizable under Rule 34(a). See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. It is uncontested that the superseding indictment validly charged Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1 of 6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10867 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
EDSON GELIN, a.k.a. Bo, Defendant- Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00131-CEM-LHP-3 ____________________
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Edson Gelin, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his post-judgment omnibus motions to USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 25-10867
arrest the judgment against him under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 34(a) and 45(b)(1)(B), and to immediately release him from custody. For the reasons which follow, we grant the govern- ment’s motion for summary affirmance. Mr. Gelin was charged and convicted of drug offenses, in vi- olation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and firearm offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal and then affirmed the denial of his post- trial motions. See United States v. Gelin, 810 F. App’x 712 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gelin, 2022 WL 10220112 (11th Cir. 2022). In this appeal, Mr. Gelin argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule 34(a) motion because the particular language used in the court’s jury instructions and verdict form impermissibly amended the indictment and deprived the court of jurisdiction. He also argues that he had established good cause and excusable ne- glect which justified an extension of the time to file his motion. The government has filed an amended motion for summary affirmance or to dismiss the appeal, solely to correct its prior incor- rect statement in its initial motion for summary affirmance or to dismiss the appeal that its motion was unopposed. 1
1 The government’s initial motion for summary affirmance, motion to dismiss,
and motion for an extension of time to file a response brief, which are super- seded by its amended motion, are DENIED AS MOOT. USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 3 of 6
25-10867 Opinion of the Court 3
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 mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where . . . the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review de novo questions of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even if raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2023). Pro se pleadings are held to a less-stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and are liberally construed. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). “[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) (quotation marks omitted). Rule 34(a) provides that, “[u]pon the defendant’s motion or on its own, the court must arrest judgment if the court does not have jurisdiction of the charged offense.” Judgment “can be ar- rested only on the basis of error appearing on the ‘face of the rec- ord,’ and not on the basis of proof offered at trial.” United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 281 (1970). A defendant must file a Rule 34(a) motion “within 14 days after the court accepts a verdict or finding of guilty, or after or after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(b). A district court may extend this deadline USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 25-10867
after it has already expired, but only “if the party failed to act be- cause of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(1)(B). District courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving “of- fenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. “[A]ll that is necessary to vest the district court with jurisdiction” is for a valid indictment to charge a defendant with a federal crime. See United States v. McLellan, 958 F.3d 1110, 1118 (11th Cir. 2020). Alleged errors in the jury instructions, including assertions that the district court omitted an element or constructively amended the charged offense, are not treated as jurisdictional defects to be re- viewed de novo, but instead are subject only to plain-error review on appeal if the defendant failed to raise the issue before the district court. See id. at 1118-19 (reviewing for plain error a defendant’s argument on appeal that the district court impermissibly omitted an element of the offense from the jury instructions); see also United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1319-22 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for plain error a defendant’s argument on appeal that the district court’s jury instruction constructively amended the charged of- fense). Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), no individual may knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance with intent to distrib- ute. An individual who attempts or conspires to knowingly or in- tentionally possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance is subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense. See §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), any person who USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 5 of 6
25-10867 Opinion of the Court 5
uses or carries a firearm during and in relation to any crime of vio- lence or drug-trafficking crime is subject to a mandatory consecu- tive term of imprisonment. As an initial matter, it is unclear on what basis the district court denied Mr. Gelin’s motion, as the court’s endorsed order lacked an explanation. But, as noted, we may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court. See Al-Arian, 514 F.3d at 1189. The district court did not err in denying Mr. Gelin’s motion to arrest his judgment under Rule 34(a). The government is clearly correct as a matter of law that his arguments are not cognizable under Rule 34(a). See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. It is uncontested that the superseding indictment validly charged Mr. Gelin with federal crimes, namely, with violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. §924(c). Thus, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 3231 to hear the case. See McLel- lan, 958 F.3d at 1118; 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Despite Mr. Gelin’s asser- tions, his argument that the district court, in essence, construc- tively amended the charged offenses by omitting certain language appearing in the indictment from its jury instructions and the ver- dict form is not jurisdictional in nature. See McLellan, 958 F.3d at 1119; see also Madden, 733 F.3d at 1319-22. Thus, even assuming ar- guendo that the district court’s contested actions were errors, relief was not available under Rule 34(a), as the errors did not impact the district court’s jurisdiction to preside over Mr. Gelin’s criminal USCA11 Case: 25-10867 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 25-10867
case. Accordingly, as the relief sought by Mr. Gelin in the underly- ing Rule 34(a) motion was unavailable to him, the district court did not err in denying his motions for an extension of time and for emergency release from custody. Accordingly, because the government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the government’s amended motion for summary affirmance. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. AFFIRMED.