USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13269 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID CILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos. 0:12-cr-60262-KAM-1 and 0:15-cv-60498-KAM ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13269

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED in part. Defendant Cilla had requested that the district court direct Lexis/Nexis to remove from its site a particular deci- sion it had previously published. The district court declined to do so, noting that Lexis/Nexis is a private company and that the court had no authority to order a private company to remove infor- mation from its data base. [Case No. 12-cr-60262 at Doc. No. 129; Case No. 15-cv-60498 at Doc. No. 46].

In his appellant’s brief to this Court, Cilla now acknowledges the correctness of the district court’s conclusion and no longer asks the district court to direct a private company to remove material from its data base. The Government has moved for summary af- firmance, and Cilla’s concession means that the Government’s mo- tion is clearly due to be granted as to this particular request origi- nally made by Cilla in his district court litigation. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance as to this part of Cilla’s appeal is GRANTED.

In his appellant’s brief, however, Cilla also indicates that he continues to request that the district court seal a particular docu- ment in the district court’s own record of his case. The district court did not rule on this particular request. The court’s inaction is somewhat understandable given that the record in Cilla’s crimi- nal case, Case No. 12-cr-60262, does not even contain this USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 3 of 4

21-13269 Opinion of the Court 3 document. Another possible reason for the absence of a ruling is the failure of Cilla to denominate in the caption of his motion this specific relief he seeks on appeal, although the body of the motion does make a passing request that the district court remove this doc- ument from PACER, which, under all the circumstances here, can arguably be read as a request that the court seal the document.

Were we dealing only with the docket for the criminal case, it would then be a simple matter to say that, although not ad- dressed by the district court, Cilla’s motion is due to be denied, as the document he wishes to be sealed is nowhere found in the docket for his criminal case. Yet, there is a second docket relating to Cilla’s criminal conviction, and that docket refers to Case Num- ber 0:15-cv-60498-KAM. This second docket includes pleadings re- lated to Cilla’s successful § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assis- tance by Cilla’s trial counsel based on the latter’s failure to file an appeal of the sentence imposed by the district court on Cilla. Cilla’s success on this motion enabled him to file what would ordinarily have been an untimely notice of appeal. 1 Of moment to the pre- sent litigation is the fact that the document that Cilla now asks to be sealed is found, unsealed, within this second docket. The district court’s ruling on Cilla’s motion to direct Lexis/Nexis to remove from its site a particular decision it had previously published is now found within this 2015 docket at Document Number 46, just as it is found in the 2012 docket. The underlying motions on which the 1In its subsequent ruling on that appeal, this Court affirmed Cilla’s conviction and sentence.

USCA11 Case: 21-13269 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13269 court ruled, found at Document Numbers 43 and 44 in the 2015 docket, are sealed.2 Cilla appealed the district court’s ruling filed in both the 2012 and the 2015 dockets.

As the district court has not yet ruled on Cilla’s motion to seal the particular document at issue, we REMAND this case to the district court to rule on this matter in the first instance. The plead- ings presently under seal in the district court and this Court shall remain under seal pending the district court’ s ruling.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.

2 Those same motions are labeled as Document Numbers 125 and 126 in the 2012 criminal case docket. They are likewise sealed in that docket.