USA v. John Collins

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant John Lee Collins. Decision: Affirmed in part and Dismissed in part. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10150

Date Filed: 01/18/2017

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10150
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:97-cr-00344-JDW-TBM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN LEE COLLINS,
a.k.a. Block,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 18, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10150

Date Filed: 01/18/2017

Page: 2 of 6

John Collins appeals, pro se, the denial of his request for grand jury
transcripts and his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Collins argues that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his request for jury transcripts and
his motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for grand jury
transcripts. The government argues that the appeal from the order denying the
request for grand jury transcripts was untimely. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Collins’s motion to reconsider its order denying his request
for grand jury documents because Collins failed to demonstrate a particularized
need for the grand jury materials. Additionally, his request was not limited to the
material needed to avoid an injustice.
I.
We review de novo the interpretation of rules of federal procedure. United
States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009). A criminal defendant must
file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of the judgment or the order
being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). This time limit is not jurisdictional,
but assures relief to a party who properly raises it as an issue. Lopez, 562 F.3d at
1312. A motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the
period of time allotted for filing a notice of appeal in order to extend the time for
filing the notice of appeal. United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412, 1414 (11th
Cir. 1992). Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court
2

Case: 16-10150

Date Filed: 01/18/2017

Page: 3 of 6

may—before or after the time has expired, with or without motion and notice—
extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from
the expiration of that time. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).
Here, Collins’s appeal from the order denying his request for grand jury
transcripts was untimely. First, Collins’s appeal from the order on November 24,
2015 was due 14 days later, on December 8, 2015. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i). However, he filed his appeal on January 11, 2016, after the
permitted time period expired. Second, while a motion for reconsideration would
have tolled the time for Collins’s appeal, he needed to file it within the 14-day
period allotted for filing the notice of appeal, on or before December 8, 2015. See
Vicaria, 963 F.2d at 1414. Collins filed his motion for reconsideration on
December 17, 2015, after the allotted time period ended. Third, a district court
could have extended the time to file a notice of appeal upon a finding of excusable
neglect or good cause for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the
time. However, that time period ended on January 7, 2016, 30 days after the 14day deadline on December 8, 2015. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).
Therefore, Collins’s notice of appeal filed on January 11, 2016 was
untimely. Collins filed it after the 14-day time period lapsed, and it did not fall
into any of the exceptions for an untimely appeal. Because the government
properly raised the issue of untimeliness and Collins’s appeal from the order
3

Case: 16-10150

Date Filed: 01/18/2017

Page: 4 of 6

denying his request for jury transcripts was untimely, we dismiss Collins’s appeal
regarding that order.
II.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider.
United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). We read briefs filed
by pro se litigants liberally. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
2008). However, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned. Id. We do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se
litigant’s reply brief. Id.
The district court may authorize disclosure of a grand-jury matter
preliminarily to, or in connection with, a judicial proceeding at the request of a
defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of
a matter that occurred before the grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i), (ii).
The district court has substantial direction in determining whether grand jury
materials should be released. United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1349
(11tth Cir. 2004). Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under rule 6(e) must show
(1) that the matter they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another
judicial proceeding, (2) that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for
continued secrecy, and (3) that their request is structured to cover only material so
needed. Id. at 1348. The burden of demonstrating that the need for disclosure
4

Case: 16-10150

Date Filed: 01/18/2017

Page: 5 of 6

outweighs the need for secrecy rests upon the private party seeking disclosure. In
order to carry out this burden, the party seeking disclosure of grand jury material
must show a compelling and particularized need for disclosure. Id. General or
unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy the particularized need requirement.
United States v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 758–59 (11th Cir. 1985).
Here, Collins did not specifically mention his motion to reconsider in his
initial brief, and issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. However, because Collins is proceeding pro
se, we liberally construe Collins’s arguments in his briefs regarding why the
district court should have granted his request for the grand jury transcripts as
arguments for why the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
reconsideration. Even liberally construing Collins’s brief, his argument still fails
because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Collins’s motion
for reconsideration.
Collins argued that the district court abused its discretion because he needed
the transcripts to avoid the injustice of his incarceration for crimes, which he did
not commit, and which he could prove that he did not commit in his collateral
proceedings. However, in order to demonstrate that the need for disclosure
outweighed the need for secrecy, Collins needed to show a compelling and
particularized need for disclosure. See Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1348. Collins failed
5

Case: 16-10150

Date Filed: 01/18/2017

Page: 6 of 6

to do so because his allegations of perjury and government misconduct rested
solely on his own speculative inferences. Collins’s claim that Kirlew told him that
he perjured himself and planted drugs on Collins was unsubstantiated, and general
or unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy the particularized need requirement.
See Cole, 755 F.2d at 758–59. Furthermore, while Collins stated that the request
covered only the necessary material and specified that the relevant material he
needed was Kirlew’s testimony, he did not limit his request to that testimony.
Collins also requested the evidence and information the prosecutor presented to the
grand jury to obtain the grand jury indictment. See Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1348.
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Collins’s
motion to reconsider its order denying his request for grand jury documents
because Collins failed to demonstrate a particularized need for the grand jury
materials and his request was not limited to the material needed to avoid an
injustice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Collins’s
motion for reconsideration.
DISMISSED, in part, and AFFIRMED, in part.

6