USCA11 Case: 19-13405 Date Filed: 01/14/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13405
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00550-VMC-SPF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD JOHN HEROMIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 14, 2021)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Heromin, a federal prisoner acting pro se, appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for relief from his judgment of conviction, which he brought
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and the district court’s denial of his
USCA11 Case: 19-13405 Date Filed: 01/14/2021 Page: 2 of 3
motion for reconsideration of that order. The government has moved to dismiss
the appeal or for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule.
Summary disposition is appropriate when “the position of one of the parties
is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). 1 An appeal is frivolous if it is “without arguable merit either in law or
fact.” Napier v. Preslicka,
314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks
omitted).
Even putting aside questions about the use of Rule 60(b) to attack a criminal
conviction, see United States v. Mosavi,
138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998); see
also Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524 (2005), Heromin’s claims are frivolous on
their face. To the extent the claims are based on his being a sovereign citizen, we
have rejected as frivolous arguments that people who proclaim themselves
“sovereign citizens” are not subject to the jurisdiction of any courts. See, e.g.,
United States v. Sterling,
738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013). And his claim
that all of Title 18 of the United States Code is invalid is patently frivolous. There
is “no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Davis,
406 F.2d at 1162,
1
We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981.
Bonner v. City of Pritchard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
2
USCA11 Case: 19-13405 Date Filed: 01/14/2021 Page: 3 of 3
and the appeal plainly is “without arguable merit either in law or fact,” Napier,
314
F.3d at 531 (quotation marks omitted).
We GRANT the government’s motion for SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE and
DENY AS MOOT its motion to stay the briefing schedule.
3
