Case: 13-15425 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15425
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21045-UU
SOLOMON DAVID ROBERTS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 13, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In 1978, Solomon David Roberts was convicted in Florida of robbery and
sentenced to prison for five years. Roberts was released on parole in 1981. One
Case: 13-15425 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 Page: 2 of 3
year later—and while still on parole—he was convicted in Florida on three counts
of attempted murder, four counts of robbery, and one count of burglary and
kidnapping each. For those crimes, he was sentenced to concurrent life sentences
without the possibility of parole. The Florida Parole Commission then revoked his
parole and sentenced him to life imprisonment, that sentence to run concurrently
with the life sentences he received for his 1982 convictions.
Having been granted leave of this court to file a successive petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Roberts petitioned pro se the Southern District of Florida to
vacate the Florida Parole Commission’s sentence, alleging that that sentence
constituted cruel and unusual punishment under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48,
130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010). Doc. 1. In May 2013, the District
Court denied relief. Doc. 40. It also denied Roberts a certificate of appealability
(“COA”). Doc. 43. In October 2013, Roberts moved the court for relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Doc. 50. Again, the court denied his
motion. Doc. 51. Nonetheless, in August 2014, the District Court issued a COA
on one issue: whether, under Graham, Roberts is entitled to relief from the life
sentence the Florida Parole Commission imposed for his parole violation. Doc. 56
at 3.
That is the only issue this appeal presents. Murray v. United States, 145
F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n an appeal brought by an unsuccessful
2
Case: 13-15425 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 Page: 3 of 3
habeas petitioner, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA.”).
In his pro se brief, Roberts does not address the Graham issue stated in the COA.
We therefore consider the issue abandoned. Henry v. Warden, 750 F.3d 1226,
1232 (11th Cir. 2014). We do so even though Roberts appeals pro se. Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
3