USCA11 Case: 18-12845 Date Filed: 11/30/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 18-12845, 19-10960
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 6:18-cv-00316-JA-KRS; 6:08-cr-00176-JA-KRS-1
FRANK L. AMODEO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 30, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 18-12845 Date Filed: 11/30/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Frank Amodeo, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motions to
appoint counsel and for relief from the judgment. Amodeo sought the assistance of
counsel to litigate a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he challenged
an order of forfeiture entered more than eight years earlier in a criminal
proceeding. The district court dismissed Amodeo’s petition as barred by laches and
then denied his related motion to appoint counsel as moot. Later, the district court
ruled that Amodeo failed to present an adequate reason to justify relief from the
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Amodeo has abandoned any challenge that he
could have made to the dismissal of his petition by raising in his initial brief only
arguments about the denial of appointed counsel. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
We review the denial of appointed counsel and relief from a judgment for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2009)
(counsel); Lugo v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 750 F.3d 1198, 1207 (11th Cir. 2014)
(relief from judgment). Under that standard, “we affirm unless we determine that
the district court applied an incorrect legal standard, failed to follow proper
procedures in making the relevant determination, or made findings of fact that are
clearly erroneous.” Lugo, 750 F.3d at 1207. We can affirm for any reason
supported by the record. United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir.
2008).
2
USCA11 Case: 18-12845 Date Filed: 11/30/2020 Page: 3 of 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Amodeo’s motions
for appointed counsel and for relief from that judgment. Amodeo had “no
constitutional right to coram nobis counsel,” Toles v. Jones, 888 F.2d 95, 99 (11th
Cir. 1989), nor did “the interests of justice or due process” require the district court
to appoint him counsel, Schultz v. Wainwright, 701 F.2d 900, 901 (11th Cir. 1983);
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1). The Rules of Civil Procedure provide only for the
appointment of a legal guardian, which Amodeo has already. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
17(c). Amodeo also was not entitled to the appointment of counsel by statute
because he did not “seek[] relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). It would have been futile to appoint counsel to pursue a
petition that Amodeo does not dispute is barred by laches. And Amodeo identified
no extraordinary circumstance that merited relief from an order denying him
appointed counsel more than eight months earlier. See Lugo, 750 F.3d at 1210; see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring a Rule 60 motion be “made within a
reasonable time”).
We AFFIRM the denial of Amodeo’s motions for counsel and for
postjudgment relief.
3