United States v. Gilberto Felix

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Gilberto Felix

298 F. App'x 905

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 2008

Docket08-12281

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 F. App'x 905 (United States v. Gilberto Felix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Gilberto Felix, 298 F. App'x 905 (11th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On February 4, 2005, appellant Gilberto Felix pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to four counts of a forty-nine count indictment: Count 1, conspiracy to defraud the United States; Count 11, possession of fictitious obligations intended to defraud the United States; Count 27, passing fictitious obligations; and Count 43, misuse of a social security number. The district court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of imprisonment totaling 168 months. We dismissed his appeal of his convictions and sentences because, in executing the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal.

*906 On January 28, 2007, Felix moved the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions and sentences. The court denied his motion. Then, on January 18, 2008, he moved the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) to require the Government to produce audio recordings and communications on the ground that they constituted Brady material. 1 The district court denied the motion.

Although it is not apparent from the district court’s order denying the motion that the court treated it as a successive § 2255 motion, a reading of the motion indicates that it does seek relief from Felix’s convictions and sentences. To the extent that the motion sought such relief, it was due to be denied, because Felix had not obtained leave of this court to file it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court was also obliged to deny Rule 16 relief because the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Rule 16 imposes on the Government an ongoing duty to disclose information “before or during trial.” Nothing in the rule grants the district courts the authority to enforce the rule long after the criminal case has concluded. The district court’s order denying Felix’s motion is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.

1

. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

On February 4, 2005, appellant Gilberto Felix pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to four counts of a forty-nine count indictment: Count 1, conspiracy to defraud the United States; Count 11, possession of fictitious obligations intended to defraud the United States; Count 27, passing fictitious obligations; and Count 43, misuse of a social security number. The district court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of imprisonment totaling 168 months. We dismissed his appeal of his convictions and sentences because, in executing the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal.

*906 On January 28, 2007, Felix moved the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions and sentences. The court denied his motion. Then, on January 18, 2008, he moved the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) to require the Government to produce audio recordings and communications on the ground that they constituted Brady material. 1 The district court denied the motion.

Although it is not apparent from the district court’s order denying the motion that the court treated it as a successive § 2255 motion, a reading of the motion indicates that it does seek relief from Felix’s convictions and sentences. To the extent that the motion sought such relief, it was due to be denied, because Felix had not obtained leave of this court to file it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court was also obliged to deny Rule 16 relief because the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Rule 16 imposes on the Government an ongoing duty to disclose information “before or during trial.” Nothing in the rule grants the district courts the authority to enforce the rule long after the criminal case has concluded. The district court’s order denying Felix’s motion is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.

1

. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F. App'x 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gilberto-felix-ca11-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack