United States v. Michael D. Beiter, Jr.

USCA11 Case: 22-11733 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 22-11733 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL D. BEITER, JR.,

Defendant- Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60273-WPD-2

____________________ 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11733 Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Beiter, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying his second post-judgment motion to “correct the record” in his underlying criminal case. The government, in turn, has moved for summary affirmance, arguing that the appeal is frivolous. Beiter opposes the motion.

Summary disposition is appropriate where “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 when the party is not entitled to relief because there is no basis in fact or law to support their position. See Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.”).

In 2013, a jury convicted Michael Beiter, Jr., of conspiracy to defraud the United States and multiple counts of false and fictious claims upon the United States, and he was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment. Since then, Beiter has filed numerous post-judgment motions seeking to clarify or otherwise correct the 22-11733 Opinion of the Court 3 record. As relevant to this appeal, in May 2022, Beiter filed a “motion to correct the record” in which he sought to have the record in his case “corrected” to reflect that Beiter was never represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (“FPD”) in his underlying criminal case because he had “fired” FPD as counsel. 2 The district court denied the motion. Beiter now appeals the district court’s ruling, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request to correct the record.

Here, despite Beiter’s contentions to the contrary, the record reflects correctly that FPD represented Beiter as his court- appointed counsel during the underlying criminal proceedings from December 2011 to January 2012. 3 Therefore, Beiter’s appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the record is frivolous and the government’s motion for summary 4 Opinion of the Court 22-11733 affirmance is GRANTED. 4 Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.