United States v. Stephen Mayer ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 20-10231      Date Filed: 01/24/2022   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 20-10231
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    STEPHEN MAYER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00190-SCB-AEP-1
    ____________________
    USCA11 Case: 20-10231               Date Filed: 01/24/2022          Page: 2 of 5
    2                           Opinion of the Court                        20-10231
    Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen Mayer, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion and
    supplemental motions for civil contempt, filed pursuant to
    
    18 U.S.C. § 401
    (3). His core contention on appeal is the Govern-
    ment violated his criminal judgment by rehousing him in privately
    run facilities that he alleges failed to adhere to the Bureau of Pris-
    ons’ (BOP) policies and customs because, he argues, these failures
    amount to a resentencing in violation of his constitutional rights.
    He also contends the Government is in contempt for sharing his
    Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) with these private facili-
    ties. 1 After review, 2 we affirm the district court.
    1 Though Mayer is now housed in a facility run by the BOP, his appeal is not
    moot because he has been removed from this same facility previously and re-
    housed in multiple private facilities specifically for criminal aliens. See Fed.
    Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 
    551 U.S. 449
    , 462 (2007)
    (explaining an exception to mootness “applies where (1) the challenged action
    is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration,
    and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will
    be subject to the same action again” (quotation marks omitted)).
    2 We review the denial of a motion for civil contempt for an abuse of discre-
    tion. McGregor v. Chierico, 
    206 F.3d 1378
    , 1383 (11th Cir. 2000). “A district
    court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows im-
    proper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that
    are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Khan, 
    794 F.3d 1288
    , 1293 (11th Cir.
    2015) (quotation marks omitted).
    USCA11 Case: 20-10231         Date Filed: 01/24/2022    Page: 3 of 5
    20-10231               Opinion of the Court                         3
    Section 401(3) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides “[a]
    court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or
    imprisonment . . . [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ,
    process, order, rule, decree, or command.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 401
    (3). As
    a criminal offense, contempt of court has the following three ele-
    ments: “(1) a lawful and reasonably specific order that (2) the de-
    fendant has violated (3) willfully.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 
    480 F.3d 1234
    , 1242 (11th Cir. 2007). “Criminal contempt is a crime in
    the ordinary sense” that requires, among other things, proof be-
    yond a reasonable doubt, and “is punitive, to vindicate the author-
    ity of the court.” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bag-
    well, 
    512 U.S. 821
    , 826-28 (1994) (quotation marks omitted).
    However, “[c]ivil contempt . . . is remedial and aims to force
    compliance with an order of the court.” United States v. Straub,
    
    508 F.3d 1003
    , 1009 (11th Cir. 2007). In order to establish a party
    acted in civil contempt, the party seeking the contempt ruling must
    show by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the allegedly violated
    order was valid and lawful, (2) the order was clear and unambigu-
    ous, and (3) the alleged violator could comply with the order. Ga.
    Power Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 
    484 F.3d 1288
    , 1291 (11th
    Cir. 2007). The order in question is subject to “reasonable inter-
    pretation,” but the order may not be expanded beyond the mean-
    ing of its terms without notice and an opportunity to be heard. 
    Id.
    (quotation marks omitted). Any ambiguities or uncertainties in the
    court order are construed in a light favorable to the party charged
    with contempt. 
    Id.
     However, the inquiry is whether the party in
    USCA11 Case: 20-10231             Date Filed: 01/24/2022         Page: 4 of 5
    4                          Opinion of the Court                       20-10231
    fact complied with the order in question, not whether the party
    subjectively believed that it was in compliance with, or intended to
    comply with, the order. 
    Id.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    Mayer’s motions.3 Section 3621 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code pro-
    vides that a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment “shall be
    committed to the custody of the [BOP].” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3621
    (a). The
    BOP has custody of a prisoner during his term of imprisonment,
    and it also has the discretion to designate any “correctional facility
    that meets minimum standards of health and habitability estab-
    lished by the [BOP], whether maintained by the Federal Govern-
    ment or otherwise.” 
    Id.
     § 3621(a)-(b). Mayer’s criminal judgment
    stated, in relevant part, only that he be committed to BOP custody,
    and housing him at private facilities did not remove him from BOP
    custody. Notably, Mayer’s criminal judgment did not specify he
    must be housed within 500 miles of his release address, in a BOP-
    run facility that houses citizens and criminal aliens alike, or other-
    wise specify the conditions of his confinement. Mayer’s allegations
    of constitutional violations at his private facilities do not establish
    the Government violated any portion of his criminal judgment.
    3 While Mayer labels his motions as invoking 
    18 U.S.C. § 401
    (3), a criminal
    offense statute, Mayer’s requested relief is remedial in nature, and he expressly
    seeks to initiate civil contempt proceedings. Regardless, we conclude Mayer’s
    motions fail under either the civil or criminal standards for contempt.
    USCA11 Case: 20-10231            Date Filed: 01/24/2022         Page: 5 of 5
    20-10231                  Opinion of the Court                               5
    Also, for this reason, his claims regarding his PSI are merit-
    less, as he does not identify a court order prohibiting its disclosure
    with a BOP-contracted facility. Further, to the extent Mayer’s re-
    quest for contempt is premised on the conditions of his confine-
    ment, he has failed to adequately address the court’s alternative
    ground his constitutional challenges needed to be brought in a sep-
    arate civil rights action. Accordingly, for these reasons, we affirm.4
    AFFIRMED
    4Mayer abandoned any challenge to the district court’s denial of his reconsid-
    eration motion by failing to brief this issue. See United States v. Cunningham,
    
    161 F.3d 1343
    , 1344 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating when a defendant offers no argu-
    ment on an issue on appeal, we consider the argument abandoned).