USA v. Steven Anthony


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Steven Allen Anthony. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 14-12226 Date Filed: 01/16/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-12226 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cr-20645-CMA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEVEN ALLEN ANTHONY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 16, 2015) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Steven Anthony appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B) to vacate his 2004 indictment for Case: 14-12226 Date Filed: 01/16/2015 Page: 2 of 2 being a felon in possession of a firearm. Rule 12(b)(3)(B) provides that the court may, “at any time while the case is pending . . . hear a claim that the indictment . . . fails to . . . state an offense.” In 2005, Anthony appealed and we affirmed his conviction. United States v. Anthony, 160 F. App’x 906 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). Our mandate issued on February 22, 2006. At that point, his case was no longer pending. See United States v. Elso, 571 F.3d 1163, 1166 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that the defendant’s case “ended, and was no longer pending . . . when the mandate issued” and that “[t]he mandate [wa]s effective when issued.”). The district court therefore lacked authority to hear Anthony’s motion. See id. (affirming district court’s denial of 12(b)(3)(B) motion because it “lacked authority to hear” such a motion when the case was no longer pending). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?