Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Nicholas Craig Woozencroft, Petitioner v. United States

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2024

NICHOLAS CRAIG WOOZENCROFT,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

HECTOR A. DOPICO

Federal Public Defender

TA’RONCE STOWES

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel of Record

150 West Flagler Street

Suite 1700

Miami, FL 33130

305-530-7000

Counsel for Petitioner

QUESTION PRESENTED

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1291 provides that “[f]ederal courts of appeals ordinarily have

jurisdiction over appeals from ‘final decisions of the district courts.’” Cunningham v.

Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 200 (1999). “‘[F]inal judgments’ are at the core

of matters appealable under § 1291.” Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 628

(1990). And in criminal cases where a judgment was entered “on less than all counts

of [the] indictment,” United States v. Abrams, 137 F.3d 704, 707 (2d Cir. 1998) (per

curiam), four Circuits have acknowledged the defendant’s right to appeal the

judgment if he has already begun serving the sentence imposed by the judgment. In

the Eleventh Circuit, however, a judgment on one count of a multi-count indictment

is not appealable while any other count is pending. And the fact that the defendant

already is incarcerated when he institutes the appeal is irrelevant.

Therefore, the petitioner presents the following question:

Whether a judgment which convicts and sentences a defendant on a count of

a multi-count indictment is appealable under § 1291 where, although others counts

remain pending, the defendant has already begun serving the sentence?

i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The case caption contains the names of all parties to the proceedings.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

The following proceedings are directly related to this petition:

•

United States v. Woozencroft, No. 23-cr-60094 (S.D. Fla.) (judgment

entered Oct. 27, 2023).

•

United States v. Woozencroft, No. 23-13617 (11th Cir.) (judgment

entered March 12, 2025).

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................................................................. i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................ ii

RELATED PROCEEDINGS.......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... v

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................................................................ 1

OPINION BELOW......................................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................. 2

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED ...................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................................... 3

I.

Proceedings in the district court ........................................................................ 3

II.

Proceedings in the court of appeals .................................................................... 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ............................................................ 5

I.

The decision below conflicts with decisions of four other Circuits on the

same important matter ....................................................................................... 5

A.

The Circuits are divided, four to one, on the question presented .......... 5

B.

The question presented is important....................................................... 9

II.

This case presents an excellent vehicle for review .......................................... 11

III.

This decision below is wrong ............................................................................ 11

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 13

iii

TABLE OF APPENDICES

United States v. Woozencroft, No. 23-13617, 2025 WL 784328 (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025)

(per curiam) ..................................................................................................... A-1

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Corey v. United States,

375 U.S. 169 (1963) .................................................................................. 9, 10, 12, 13

Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio,

527 U.S. 198 (1999) ..................................................................................................... i

Dolan v. United States,

560 U.S. 605 (2010) .................................................................................................. 12

Heike v. United States,

217 U.S. 423 (1910) .................................................................................................. 12

Meachum v. Fano,

427 U.S. 215 (1976) .................................................................................................. 12

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey,

351 U.S. 427 (1956) .................................................................................................... 9

Sullivan v. Finkelstein,

496 U.S. 617 (1990) ..................................................................................................... i

Trump v. United States,

603 U.S. 593 (2024) .............................................................................................. 9, 13

United States v. Abrams,

137 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 1998) ...................................................... i, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13

United States v. Kaufmann,

951 F.2d (7th Cir. 1992)............................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 11

v

United States v. King,

257 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................... 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13

United States v. Landrum,

2025 WL 1452471 (11th Cir. May 21, 2025) ........................................................... 10

United States v. Leichter,

160 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

United States v. MacDonald,

435 U.S. 850 (1978) .............................................................................................. 9, 13

United States v. Woozencroft,

No. 23-13617, 2025 WL 784328 (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025)............... 4, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12

Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) .................................................................................................. 3, 4

18 U.S.C. § 3582 ............................................................................................................. 4

18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) ................................................................................................ 11, 12

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................................................................ 2

28 U.S.C. § 1291 ......................................................................................... 2, 4, 8, 11, 12

28 U.S.C. § 3582(b) ...................................................................................................... 12

28 U.S.C. §§ 1257, 1291 ........................................................................................... 9, 13

18 U.S.C. § 1291 .............................................................................................................. i

Other Authorities

15B Wright, Miller, Cooper,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3918.7, at 537 (2d ed. 1992) ............................... 7

vi

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2024

No.

NICHOLAS CRAIG WOOZENCROFT,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Mr. Nicholas Craig Woozencroft, respectfully petitions for a writ of

certiorari to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit.

OPINION BELOW

The Eleventh Circuit judgment to be reviewed was rendered on March 12,

2025. The supporting opinion is reproduced herein as Appendix (“App.”) A-1.

1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Mr. Woozencroft brings this petition following the Eleventh Circuit’s rendition

of a final judgment. This Court therefore has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

This petition is timely. The Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion below on March 12,

2025, which made any petition for a writ of certiorari due by June 10, 2025.

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED

The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final

decisions of the district courts of the United States, the United States

District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of

Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct

review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the

jurisdiction described in sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (emphasis added).

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I.

Proceedings in the district court.

In May of 2023, Mr. Woozencroft was indicted in the Southern District of

Florida on two counts of purchasing firearms by means of false statements about the

actual buyer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). United States v. Woozencroft, No.

23-cr-60094 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter, “S.D. Fla.”) ECF No. 3. He posted bond shortly

thereafter. S.D. Fla. ECF No. 8.

At trial in August of 2023, a jury found Mr. Woozencroft guilty of the second

count. S.D. Fla. ECF No. 58. With respect to the first count, however, the jury

inquired six times about the relationship between two conflicting firearms

transaction records, one of which the government relied upon to prove the alleged

statement. S.D. Fla. ECF No. 56. Following instruction from the district court and

still unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the jury hung the first count. S.D. Fla. ECF

No. 56; ECF No. 58; ECF No. 59. Mr. Woozencroft has been incarcerated ever since.

In October of 2023, the district court sentenced Mr. Woozencroft to forty-one

months’ imprisonment, to be followed by twelve months’ supervised release. S.D. Fla.

ECF No. 80.

II.

Proceedings in the court of appeals.

Mr. Woozencroft timely appealed the judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. S.D.

Fla. ECF No. 81. Before any merits briefing, however, the Eleventh Circuit directed

the parties to address whether the district court had entered a final, appealable order

given that it declared a mistrial as to Count 1 of the Indictment. United States v.

3

Woozencroft, No. 23-13617 (11th Cir.) (hereinafter “11th Cir.”) ECF No. 13. Jointly

responding, the parties submitted that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the

appeal because the district court had entered a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

as to Count 2—a conclusion supported by 18 U.S.C. § 3582’s plain meaning, case law,

and treatises. 11th Cir. ECF No. 17. The Eleventh Circuit decided to carry the

jurisdictional issue with the case. 11th Cir. ECF No. 23.

Mr. Woozencroft, in his merits briefs, argued that the district court’s judgment

must be reversed because the court prevented the jury from considering evidence that

was relevant and necessary for him to establish a valid defense to both § 922(a)(6)

charges. 11th Cir. ECF No. 26, ECF No. 42. Mr. Woozencroft further argued that the

district court erred in enhancing his sentence under the Sentencing Guideline for

obliterated serial numbers of firearms. Id.

Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit declined to address the merits. Returning to

the jurisdictional question, it determined that it was “bound by [its] own precedent”

“to hold that [it] lack[ed] jurisdiction at this point in Woozencroft’s proceedings.”

Woozencroft, No. 23-13617, 2025 WL 784328, at **1-2 & n.5. The Eleventh Circuit

rendered its judgment on March 12, 2025—nearly twenty months since he was

convicted and remanded to the Bureau of Prisons’s custody.

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I.

The decision below conflicts with decisions of four other

Circuits on the same important matter.

A.

The Circuits are divided, four to one, on the question

presented.

The Second and Ninth Circuits have held that a defendant may “appeal a count

on which he has been convicted and sentenced” while other counts “remain

unresolved,” particularly where the defendant had already begun serving the

sentence. See United States v. Abrams, 137 F.3d 704, 707 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

The Second Circuit did so in Abrams. Abrams was charged with multiple

counts of violating the Internal Revenue Code. Id. at 705. Following a jury trial, the

district court declared a mistrial as to some of the counts. Id. at 705-06. It otherwise

entered a judgment convicting Abrams of the remaining counts and sentencing him

to a term of imprisonment. Id. at 705-06. The Second Circuit considered whether it

had jurisdiction over Abrams’s “appeal from th[at] judgment when other counts of the

indictment (as to which the district court declared a mistrial) [we]re unresolved and

await[ed] retrial.” Id. at 707. Noting that Abrams was serving his sentence at the

time, the Second Circuit expressed concern that dismissal would have forced him to

serve the sentence “without acquiring the right to appeal it.” Id. at 706-07. It

therefore exercised jurisdiction and proceeded to the merits. Id. at 707.

In United States v. King, 257 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2001), a factually comparable

case, the Ninth Circuit followed Abrams in determining that appellate jurisdiction

existed. After King pled guilty to nearly half of the indictment’s counts, the district

5

court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment and ordered that he pay over $300,000

in restitution. Id. at 1017-19. King filed an appeal challenging the plea’s validity and

the restitution amount, among other things. Id. at 1017. The government contended

that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction because multiple counts of the indictment

had “yet to be adjudicated.” Id. at 1017, 1019. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Id. at

1020-21. Citing Abrams, 137 F.3d at 707, it concluding that the government’s position

violated “fundamental notions of due process” since King, too, would have been forced

to “begin serving his sentence before obtaining the right to appeal it.” King, 257 F.3d

at 1020. And that concern, it added, “outweigh[ed] the government’s concerns about

piecemeal appellate review.” Id. at 1021.

First and Seventh Circuits cases also are instructive. While those Circuits

might conclude that the judgments against Abrams and King were not “final” in the

technical sense, it is likely they still would conclude that Abrams’s and King’s

incarcerations justified the First and Seventh Circuits’ exercise of jurisdiction. United

States v. Leichter, 160 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1998), and United States v. Kaufmann, 951

F.2d 1992 (7th Cir. 1992), illustrate these points.

The First Circuit “prefer[s] to view a final judgment as one disposing of all

counts or claims with respect to all parties.” Leichter, 160 F.3d at 35. That is why, in

Leichter, it held that the indictment’s “untried counts” against the appellants

rendered the district court’s judgment on the indictment’s conspiracy count “nonfinal.” Id. at 34-35.

6

But tellingly, the First Circuit found it necessary to “note” the district court’s

decision to stay execution of the appellants’ sentences on the conspiracy conviction.

Id. at 37. That decision was “important” to the jurisdictional inquiry because

“‘[i]mmediate appeal must be allowed before a partial sentence can be executed.’” Id.

(alteration in original) (quoting 15B Wright, Miller, Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 3918.7, at 537 (2d ed. 1992)). So the First Circuit’s “‘insistence on final

disposition of all counts’” would have been unreasonable had “‘an attempt [been]

made to enforce the sentence on the counts that ha[d] been finally resolved.’” Id.

Presumably, then, the First Circuit would have immediately reviewed the appellants’

appeal had they been “languishing in jail awaiting trial on the remaining counts” (as

in Abrams and King). Id. But they were not. Because of the stay, none of the

appellants were in prison during the appellate proceedings. Id. at 35. The First

Circuit therefore saw no need to change its holding. Id. at 37.

The Seventh Circuit has espoused the same view on similar facts. In

Kaufmann, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a

judgment on one count of the indictment because a mistrial had left the indictment’s

other counts “unresolved.” 951 F.2d at 795. In making that determination, however,

the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that while the district court had stayed the

execution of Kaufmann’s sentence, it would have been “particularly unfair to subject

[him] to imprisonment or other punishment without any right to appeal.” Id.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit approved the stay “to mitigate that unacceptable

7

ramification of its analysis.” Abrams, 137 F.3d at 707 (citing Kaufmann, 951 F.2d at

795).

By contrast, as the decision below shows, the fact that a defendant already is

incarcerated when he appeals a judgment is irrelevant to a § 1291 analysis in the

Eleventh Circuit. As in Abrams (and Kaufmann), Mr. Woozencroft was indicted on

two counts: the first of which resulted in a mistrial while the second one resulted in

a conviction and a sentence. United States v. Woozencroft, No. 23-13617, 2025 WL

784328, at *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (per curiam). The first count has yet to be set

for retrial—let alone actually retried. Id. Meanwhile, the district court had not stayed

execution of Mr. Woozencroft’s imprisonment term. See id. at *2 n.5. So like Abrams

and King, he “is currently ‘languishing in jail’ on one count and ‘awaiting trial’ on the

other count without the right to immediate appeal because of the unresolved status

of the other count.” Id. (first quoting Leichter, 160 F.3d at 37; then citing Kaufmann,

951 F.3d at 795).

With these facts, the First, Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits likely would

have exercised jurisdiction, reasoning that it would be “particularly unfair” and

“violate fundamental notions of due process” to continue imprisoning Mr.

Woozencroft “without any right to appeal.” See King, 257 F.3d at 1020; Abrams, 137

F.3d at 707; Kaufmann, 951 F.2d at 795. See also Leichter, 160 F.3d at 37. The

Eleventh Circuit, in fact, referenced those very Circuits’ decisions in “acknowledg[ing]

th[is] important fairness concern.” Woozencroft, No. 23-13617, 2025 WL 784328, at *2

n.5 (first citing Abrams, 137 F.3d at 706-07; then citing Kaufmann, 951 F.2d at 795;

8

and then citing Leichter, 160 F.3d at 36). It nonetheless felt “bound by [its] own

precedent” “to hold that [it] lack[ed] jurisdiction at this point in Woozencroft’s

proceedings.” Id. at **1-2 & n.5.

B.

The question presented is important.

This is so for at least four reasons:

First, this Court’s jurisdictional precedent evidences the importance of legal

questions like that presented in this petition. In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, the

Court expressly acknowledged “the importance of the issue in determining appellate

jurisdiction.” 351 U.S. 427, 429 (1956). Since then, it “frequently has considered the

appealability of pretrial orders in criminal cases,” United States v. MacDonald, 435

U.S. 850, 853 (1978), as well as the appealability of judgments entered in such cases

after trial—including where, like here, the lower courts would have forced the

defendant “to defer his appeal until after he had submitted to . . . months of

incarceration,” Corey v. United States, 375 U.S. 169, 173 (1963).

Second, the question presented implicates criminal defendants’ constitutional

interests. As Justice Barrett noted last Term, “where trial itself threatens certain

constitutional interests, [the Court] ha[s] treated the trial court’s resolution of [an]

issue as a ‘final decision’ for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.” Trump v. United

States, 603 U.S. 593, 654 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring in part) (first

citing MacDonald, 435 U.S. at 854-56; then citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257, 1291). In Corey,

for instance, the Court rejected the interpretation of a statute that would have

required a defendant to “defer his appeal until after he had submitted to the three or

9

six months of incarceration and diagnostic study prescribed by the statute.” 375 U.S.

at 173. Among other reasons for this decision, the Court determined that such a

requirement “might raise constitutional problems of significant proportions.” Id. At

least one Circuit has squarely opined that mandating a criminal defendant to “begin

serving his sentence before obtaining the right to appeal it[] would violate

fundamental notions of due process.” King, 257 F.3d at 1020.

These are precisely the interests that are at stake here. The approach followed

by the Eleventh Circuit in the decision below would, as the Second Circuit concluded

in Abrams, force criminal defendants to serve a sentence—which routinely includes

imprisonment—“without acquiring the right to appeal it.” Abrams, 137 F.3d at 70607.

Third, the question presented in recurring. Barely two months after dismissing

Mr. Woozencroft’s appeal, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed another appeal from a

judgment that “disposed of the count of conviction but not the other counts charged

in the indictment.” United States v. Landrum, No. 24-13964, 2025 WL 1452471, at *1

(11th Cir. May 21, 2025) (per curiam). Because the district court had declared a

mistrial as to those other counts, the Eleventh Circuit held that the judgment was

not “final or otherwise appealable.” Id.

And fourth, in light of four-Circuit conflict, geography alone now determines

whether someone charged with multiple offenses would immediately “obtain[] the

right to appeal,” or would be forced to “defer” the appeal and “languish[] in jail” for

10

months—if not years. See Corey, 375 U.S. at 173; King, 257 F.3d at 1020; Leichter,

160 F.3d at 37.

II.

This case presents an excellent vehicle for review.

This case cleanly implicates the Circuit split. This case, as well

as Leichter, Abrams, Kaufmann, and King present the same core facts. Namely:

•

the defendant was indicted on multiple counts;

•

at least one count resulted in a conviction and sentence;

•

at least one other count was never adjudicated, for one reason or another;

•

and that count remained pending when the defendant appealed the conviction

and sentence.

For these same reasons, each case presented the same core issue: Whether the

judgment was appealable under § 1291? Furthermore, Mr. Woozencroft would be

entitled to relief in any other Circuit that has addressed the issue. The Eleventh

Circuit itself acknowledged that Mr. Woozencroft is serving his imprisonment term

because the district court did not stay the execution of his sentence. Woozencroft, No.

23-13617, 2025 WL 784328, at *2 n.5. So Mr. Woozencroft would been entitled to an

“immediate appeal” of the district court’s judgment. See Leichter, 160 F.3d at 37.

III.

This decision below is wrong.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is not, in the Second Circuit’s words, “faithful

to the articulation by Congress and [this] Court as to the nature of a final judgment

in criminal proceedings.” See Abrams, 137 F.3d at 707.

11

With respect to Congress, “[t]he appellate jurisdiction in the Federal system of

procedure is purely statutory.” Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 428 (1910). And

18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) already provides some guidance as to which judgments could

serve as a basis for appellate jurisdiction under statutes like § 1291. It states that,

“[n]otwithstanding the fact that a sentence to imprisonment can subsequently be”

“modified,” “corrected,” or “appealed and modified” pursuant to other statutes

irrelevant to this petition, “a judgment of conviction that includes such a sentence

constitutes a final judgment for all other purposes.” 28 U.S.C. § 3582(b). Logically,

such “other purposes” would include appealing from “final decisions of the district

courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The judgment from which Mr. Woozencroft has appealed satisfies the plain

meaning of § 3582(b). Because the judgment includes a sentence of imprisonment, see

Woozencroft, No. 23-13617, 2025 WL 784328, at *1, it “constitutes a final judgment”

for appellate purposes under § 1291. See 28 U.S.C. § 3582(b).

With respect to this Court, it “has previously said that a judgment that imposes

‘discipline’ may still be ‘freighted with sufficiently substantial indicia of finality to

support an appeal.’” Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 617 (2010) (quoting Corey

v. United States, 375 U.S. at 174). And when such discipline “has been imposed, the

defendant is entitled to review.” Corey, 375 U.S. at 174. The judgment here has

subjected Mr. Woozencroft to such discipline. Having been convicted, he has been

“deprived of his liberty” and “the State [has] confine[d] him and subject[ed] him to

the rules of its prison system.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976).

12

Finally, as Justice Barrett acknowledged in Trump, “where trial itself

threatens certain constitutional interests, [this Court] ha[s] treated the trial court’s

resolution of [an] issue as a ‘final decision’ for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.” 603

U.S. at 654 (Barrett, J., concurring in part) (first citing MacDonald, 435 U.S. at 85456; then citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257, 1291). In this regard, the Court has held that

compelling a defendant “to defer his appeal until after he had submitted to . . . months

of incarceration” “might raise constitutional problems of significant proportions.”

Corey, 375 U.S. at 173. And as other Circuits have cautioned: The Eleventh Circuit’s

decision below, “under which [Mr. Woozencroft] would begin serving his sentence

before obtaining the right to appeal it, would violate fundamental notions of due

process.” See King, 257 F.3d at 1020 (citing Abrams, 137 F.3d at 707). Thus, the trial

here, which resulted in a conviction and imprisonment sentence, has threatened Mr.

Woozencroft’s constitutional interests. See Trump, 603 U.S. at 654 (Barrett, J.,

concurring in part).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this petition for a writ of

certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

HECTOR A. DOPICO

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

By:

/s/ Ta’Ronce Stowes

Ta’Ronce Stowes

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel of Record

150 West Flagler Street

13

Suite 1500

Miami, FL 33130

(305) 530-6900

Counsel for Petitioner

Miami, Florida

June 10, 2025

14