U.S. v. Ellsworth, 86-5148
| Decision Date | 13 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-5148,86-5148 |
| Citation | 814 F.2d 613 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick ELLSWORTH, Russell Scott Roloff, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Jack Goldberger, West Palm Beach, Fla., (Court-appointed), for ellsworth.
Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before FAY, ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Patrick Ellsworth, is a criminal defendant currently serving a sentence rendered against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. An appeal of appellant's conviction is currently pending before this court. Because of cooperation with the Federal Government subsequent to his conviction, appellant seeks a reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim. P. 35(b). On February 26, 1987, appellant filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that this court relinquish jurisdiction to the district court.
Motions for the reduction of sentences are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. See United States v. Bethany, 489 F.2d 91, 93 (5th Cir.1974) 1; United States v. Sanders, 438 F.2d 344, 344 (5th Cir.1971). This court is without jurisdiction to entertain a motion which must be directed to the district court. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984); United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1344 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Fuentes-Lozano, 580 F.2d 724, 725 (5th Cir.1978). The proper procedure after an appeal is taken is for a motion to be filed with the district court; the district court may either deny the motion on its merits or certify that the motion should be granted in order to afford the appellate court jurisdiction to entertain a motion to remand. See Cronic, 466 U.S. at 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. at 2051 n. 42; Bascaro, 742 F.2d at 1344; United States v. Reeh, 725 F.2d 633, 633 (11th Cir.1984); Fuentes-Lozano, 580 F.2d at 725-26. Appellant has not filed his motion in the district court. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to rule on its merits. Appellants motion is denied without prejudice to seek relief in the district court.
1 The Eleventh Circuit, in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Diaz-Clark, No. 01-12343.
...(1) the case was on appeal; (2) there was no pending motion that would warrant the filing of a motion under United States v. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d 613 (11th Cir.1987); and (3) if Diaz-Clark were to file a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro......
-
US v. Arango
...for Vacatur, Dismissal, New Trial and Production of Documentation. In accordance with the procedures set forth in United States v. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d 613 (11th Cir.1987), as more fully set forth below, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matters set forth in Defendants' Moti......
-
US v. McFarlane, 88-186-CR-T-17C.
...his counsel's promise to appeal, this Court agreed with the United States' motion (Docket No. 230), filed pursuant to United States v. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d 613 (11th Cir. (1987), and issued an order on September 8, 1993 (Docket No. 231) certifying that remand for an evidentiary hearing was w......
-
U.S. v. Arango
...the Brady issue raised by the government's motion. The trial court determined that the proper procedure was that of United States v. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d 613 (11th Cir.1987), and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on May 13, Defense counsel was instructed to submit his post-trial moti......