USCA11 Case: 24-10056 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10056 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MATTHEW JAMES CHOY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20307-KMW-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10056 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10056

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Matthew James Choy appeals his conviction and 40-month sentence for criminal contempt. His sole arguments on appeal are that Federal Bureau of Prisons officials failed to designate a medical prison facility as his place of confinement and instead improperly subjected him to extended periods of solitary confinement. The government moves for summary affirmance. Summary disposition is appropriate if “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 On direct appeal in a criminal case, we review the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212–13 (1937). The authority to designate the place of a federal prisoner’s confinement is vested by statute in the Bureau of Prisons—not the district court. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Because Choy does not make any argument challenging his conviction or sentence, the government is “clearly right as a matter of law” that the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. We therefore GRANT the

1 Groendyke Transportation is binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit under

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). USCA11 Case: 24-10056 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-10056 Opinion of the Court 3

government’s motion for summary affirmance. We DENY the al- ternative motion to dismiss and DENY as moot the government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule. AFFIRMED.