Handy Bailey, Jr. v. United States , 307 F. App'x 401 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
U.S. COURT OF
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
------------------------------------------- JANUARY 16, 2009
No. 08-10034
Non-Argument Calendar
--------------------------------------------
D.C. Docket No. 97-00213-CR-T-17MAP
HANDY BAILEY, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
(January 16, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner-Appellant Handy Bailey, Jr. (“Bailey”), a federal prisoner
proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s summary denial of his
Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 (“Rule 33”) Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered
Evidence. The District Court denied his untimely motion without explanation. No
reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
On 18 December 1997, Bailey was convicted of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court
sentenced him to 360 months in prison followed by 96 months of supervised
release. In the following years, Bailey filed several post-conviction motions.
On 12 April 2007, Bailey filed a Rule 33 Motion for New Trial Based on
Newly Discovered Evidence. According to Rule 33, Bailey had three years to file
this motion. The last date on which he properly could have filed it was 18
December 2000.
The District Court denied the motion sua sponte and did not indicate the
basis on which it made its decision. On appeal, Bailey argues that the District
Court abused its discretion by failing to explain why it denied the motion.
Motions for a new trial are reviewed for abuse of discretion. U.S. v.
Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th Cir. 1985). District courts are responsible
for rendering reasoned decisions, and this Court has remanded where a one-
2
sentence summary denial denied the “opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate
review.” Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091-92 (11th Cir. 2007). This Court
has remanded 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases when the district court summarily denied
them. See, e.g., Broadwater v. U.S., 292 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir. 2002). But
this Court has also said that not every summary denial needs more explanation,
and some § 2255 motions may be clearly without merit. Id. This Court may
affirm a lower court ruling on any ground supported by the record. U.S. v. Mejia,
82 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 1996).
This motion was untimely by at least five years and is therefore clearly
without merit, and we affirm its dismissal on that ground.
AFFIRMED.
3