Case: 19-11287 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11287
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:03-cr-60235-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARNE SOREIDE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 7, 2019)
Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-11287 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Arne Soreide, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
Soreide’s post-conviction motions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b), and for
reconsideration. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
In 2004, Soreide was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire
fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, engaging in prohibited monetary
transactions, and filing fraudulent tax returns. We affirmed Soreide’s convictions
on direct appeal but vacated his sentences and remanded for resentencing in the
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. Soreide,
177 F. App’x 31 (11th Cir. 2006). On remand, the district court imposed the same
sentence and entered an amended judgment on 5 October 2006. Soreide filed no
direct appeal from the amended judgment.
In 2007, Soreide filed pro se a motion to vacate his sentences under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the motion on the merits; we denied
Soreide a certificate of appealability. In 2016, Soreide filed a second section 2255
motion. The district court determined that the motion constituted an unauthorized
second or successive section 2255 motion and, thus, dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction.
2
Case: 19-11287 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 3 of 5
In March 2019, Soreide filed the pro se motion at issue in this appeal, which
is titled “Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(a)-(b).” In his motion, Soreide
seeks to reverse his convictions and to vacate his sentences. Briefly stated, Soreide
contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Soreide’s criminal trial
because Soreide never received a copy of the indictment and never had the
indictment read or explained to him. Soreide also challenges the district court’s
jury instructions, alleges juror misconduct, and challenges his sentences as
procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The district court denied Soreide’s motion for lack of jurisdiction,
determining that Soreide’s case was no longer pending, as required by Rule
12(b)(2). The district court later denied Soreide’s motion for reconsideration.
We review de novo questions about jurisdiction. United States v. Lopez,
562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009). We review the district court’s denial of a
motion for reconsideration under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v.
Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). We construe liberally pro se
pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
The district court committed no error in denying Soreide’s motion for lack
of jurisdiction. Generally speaking, Rule 12 governs the filing of pretrial motions.
A motion challenging the district court’s jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2),
3
Case: 19-11287 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 4 of 5
however, “may be made at any time while the case is pending.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(b)(2). Soreide filed his Rule 12 motion more than twelve years after the
mandate issued in his direct appeal of his convictions and after his amended
judgment had become final. That Soreide’s criminal case was no longer “pending”
when he filed his Rule 12 motion is clear. Cf. United States v. Elso, 571 F.3d
1163, 1166 (11th Cir. 2009) (a defendant’s criminal case ends when the mandate
issues on direct appeal or when the Supreme Court denies a petition for certiorari).
Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Soreide’s Rule
12(b)(2) motion. See id.
Furthermore, we note that Soreide’s motion -- in which he seeks to challenge
collaterally his convictions and sentences -- may be more properly construed as a
section 2255 motion to vacate. See Gooden v. United States, 627 F.3d 846, 847
(11th Cir. 2010) (“Federal courts have long recognized that they have an obligation
to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether
the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory
framework.”); Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th Cir. 2005)
(“Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal sentence must be brought
under § 2255.”). Because Soreide has already filed a section 2255 motion and has
received no authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 motion, the
4
Case: 19-11287 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 5 of 5
district court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.
2003) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
second or successive [§ 2255 motion].”).
The district court denied properly Soreide’s purported Rule 12 motion for
lack of jurisdiction and abused no discretion in denying Soreide’s motion for
reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
5