USCA11 Case: 22-11640 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11640
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAYNARD SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00358-LGW-CLR-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11640 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11640
____________________
No. 22-11808
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAYNARD SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00011-WTM-CLR-1
____________________
Before WILSON, LUCK, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maynard Sanders, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
peals following the district court’s denial of his two motions for
USCA11 Case: 22-11640 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023 Page: 3 of 6
22-11640 Opinion of the Court 3
reconsideration of its earlier denials of compassionate release,
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), pursuant to § 603 of the First Step Act, 1
in his two separate criminal cases. See generally United States v.
Sanders,
744 F. App’x 641 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming
Sanders’ 78-month sentence following his conviction for posses-
sion of a firearm by a felon); United States v. Sanders,
756 F. App’x
917 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming Sanders’ 186-month
sentence following his convictions on several counts of bank fraud,
aggravated identity theft, and aiding and abetting theft by a bank
employee). In this appeal, Sanders argues that: (1) the district court
abused its discretion by denying his motions for reconsideration as
time-barred; and (2) as an alternative, the district court should have
liberally construed each of his motions for reconsideration as a sup-
plemental motion for compassionate release. After careful review,
we affirm.
We normally review the denial of a motion for reconsidera-
tion in a criminal appeal for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Simms,
385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). When we review for
abuse of discretion, it “means that the district court had a ‘range of
choice’ and that we cannot reverse just because we might have
come to a different conclusion . . . .” United States v. Harris,
989
F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted). Where, how-
ever, a defendant fails to raise an issue in the district court, we re-
view for plain error only. United States v. Innocent,
977 F.3d 1077,
1
Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“First Step Act”).
USCA11 Case: 22-11640 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11640
1081 (11th Cir. 2020). To establish plain error, the defendant must
show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substan-
tial rights. United States v. Turner,
474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir.
2007). If the defendant satisfies these conditions, we may exercise
our discretion to recognize the error only if it seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Id.
We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Campbell v. Air Ja-
maica Ltd.,
760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). We’ve held in the
28 U.S.C. § 2255 context that courts “have an obligation to look
behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine
whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different reme-
dial statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan,
915 F.2d 622,
624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). However, regardless of the context, all lit-
igants must comply with the applicable procedural rules, and we
will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party, or . . . rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Camp-
bell,
760 F.3d at 1168–69 (quotations omitted).
Although a motion for reconsideration in a criminal action
is not expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce-
dure, the timely filing of such a motion will toll the time for filing
a notice of appeal, with the time beginning to run anew following
disposition of the motion. See United States v. Dieter,
429 U.S. 6,
8–9 (1976); United States v. Vicaria,
963 F.2d 1412, 1413–14 (11th
Cir. 1992). A motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be
filed within the time allotted for filing a notice of appeal, however,
in order to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Fed. R.
USCA11 Case: 22-11640 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023 Page: 5 of 6
22-11640 Opinion of the Court 5
App. P. 4(b); Vicaria,
963 F.2d at 1414. Thus, a criminal defendant
must file a motion for reconsideration within 14 days of the order
or judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing Sanders’s motions for reconsideration. Simms,
385 F.3d at
1356. For starters, both of these motions were untimely. Sanders
first moved for compassionate release in August 2020, in his case
involving his convictions for bank fraud, aggravated identity theft,
and theft by a bank employee. When the district court denied this
motion in October 2020, Sanders did not move for reconsideration
until April 2022. Sanders also moved for compassionate release in
his other criminal case -- this one involving his conviction for being
a felon in possession of a firearm -- in November 2020. This time,
the district court denied his motion for compassionate release in
May 2021, and he did not move for reconsideration until May 2022.
Because a criminal defendant must file a motion for reconsidera-
tion within 14 days of the order from which reconsideration is
sought, and because Sanders did not move for reconsideration until
over a year later in both instances, neither of Sanders’s motions
were timely. Vicaria,
963 F.2d at 1413–14.
Sanders now argues to our Court that the district court
should have alternatively construed his motion for reconsideration
as a supplemental motion for compassionate release. Because
Sanders makes this argument for the first time on appeal, we re-
view it for plain error, and we can find none. Sanders has offered
no authority holding that a district court is obligated to sua sponte
USCA11 Case: 22-11640 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11640
reconstrue a motion for reconsideration as a supplemental motion
for compassionate release. Moreover, because the First Step Act
does not prohibit a prisoner from filing successive motions for
compassionate release, Sanders cannot show that his substantial
rights were affected by the district court’s failure to sua sponte con-
strue his motions as motions for compassionate release. Thus, the
district court did not plainly err in denying these motions.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
