United States v. Michael Craig Pugh , 426 F. App'x 876 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-14920 MAY 20, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 99-00018-CR-3-RV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL CRAIG PUGH,
a.k.a. Crucito Solano Serrano,
a.k.a. Michael Craig Munjakaze Kiserian,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 20, 2011)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Craig Pugh, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion to reconsider his motion for new DNA testing pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3600. Pugh argues that the Government did not meet its burden under 18
U.S.C. § 3600(a)(4) to show that the evidence he sought to have tested was
destroyed.1
We review both criminal and civil motions to reconsider under an abuse of
discretion standard. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004)
(criminal); Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113, 1121 (11th Cir.
2004) (civil). The interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review
de novo, and the district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See,
e.g., United States v. Simmons, 368 F.3d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting
the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984).
1
We reject the Government’s argument that Pugh’s appeal was untimely. In a civil
case where the United States is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of the
date the order appealed from is entered on the docket. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B). Post-conviction
proceedings are considered “civil in nature,” and, therefore, they are subject to this 60-day
appeals period rather than the 14-day period of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
4(b)(1)(A)(i). See Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1231 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, a notice of
appeal filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers it to prison
authorities or places it in the prison mail system. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S. Ct. 2379 (1988). Absent contrary evidence, we will assume that a
prisoner’s filing “was delivered to prison authorities the day he signed it.” Washington v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). Pugh delivered his notice of appeal to prison
authorities 26 days after the district court’s opinion was issued, falling safely within the 60 days.
2
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3600, “an individual under a sentence of imprisonment”
may file a written motion for the DNA testing of specific evidence. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3600(a). The district court may order this testing if it finds that ten conditions
apply. Id. The only condition at issue in this case is § 3600(a)(4), which states:,
The specific evidence to be tested is in the possession of the
[g]overnment and has been subject to a chain of custody and retained
under conditions sufficient to ensure that such evidence has not been
substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any
respect material to the proposed DNA testing.
§ 3600(a)(4).
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(B) provides that, “If anything
material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or
accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental
record may be certified and forwarded . . . by the district court before or after the
record has been forwarded.” We can affirm a summary judgment on grounds other
than those relied upon by the district court. Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions,
Inc., 584 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2009).
Here, the district court clearly erred in adopting the magistrate judge’s
factual finding that the government showed that the evidence Pugh sought to have
tested was destroyed. The Government offered no evidence before the district
court in support of this assertion. However, since that time, the Government has
3
moved to supplement the record on appeal and submitted the evidence log of the
Escambia County Sheriff’s Office. The district court granted the Government’s
motion and we note that the record log shows that items 7 and 8, hand made
masks, have been destroyed. To the extent that Pugh argues the Government
violated the strictures of § 3600 when it destroyed the evidence, we reject that
argument because the Sheriff’s Office destroyed the evidence before § 3600
became law and thus it was not bound by any of § 3600’s preservation mandates.2
Because there is no evidence to submit to testing, we affirm the district court’s
decision.
AFFIRMED.
2
Section 3600 was enacted on October 30, 2004, while the evidence was destroyed
on June 21, 2004.
4