Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph HARVEY, Anja Karin Kannell, Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Joseph Harvey and his wife, Anja Kannell, appeal pro se the denial of their second motion to set aside their sentences. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We review the denial of a motion to set aside for abuse of discretion. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Nw. Nat. Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). Under that standard, “so long as the district court does not commit a clear error in judgment, we will affirm the district court’s decision.” Young v. City of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 863 (11th Cir. 2004).
Harvey and Kannell’s second motion to set aside their sentences is barred by the law of the case. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a district court cannot “revisit[ ] issues that were actually, or by necessary implication, decided by an appellate court” unless “ ‘(1) new and substantially different evidence emerges at a subsequent trial; (2) controlling authority has been rendered that is contrary to the previous decision; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice if implemented.’ ” Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1197–98 (11th Cir. 2004)). In their first motion to set aside, Harvey and Kannell argued that the failure to address several arguments in their motion to vacate violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). We ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain that motion because it was successive. United States v. Harvey, 699 F. App'x 899, 900 (11th Cir. 2017). Harvey and Kannell’s second motion to set aside is duplicative of their first motion, and they identify no exception to the law of the case doctrine that applies to their second motion. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Harvey and Kannell’s second motion to set aside their sentences, we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-11617
Decided: May 28, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)