United States v. Jonathan Daniel Adleta, 11th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Jonathan Daniel Adleta, 11th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Jonathan Daniel Adleta, 11th Cir. (2015)
Page: 1 of 4
Case: 14-10228
Page: 2 of 4
Despite having preserved those two objections in the district court, Adleta has abandoned
both on appeal by failing to brief either of them. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385
F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) ([A] legal claim or argument that has not been briefed before
the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.); United States v. Jernigan,
341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) ([A] party seeking to raise a claim or issue on appeal
must plainly and prominently so indicate. Otherwise, the issue even if properly preserved at
trial will be considered abandoned.) (emphasis added).
Case: 14-10228
Page: 3 of 4
Case: 14-10228
Page: 4 of 4
plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court
directly resolving it.) (quotation marks omitted). Adleta cites no binding
authority supporting his position neither from the Supreme Court nor from our
Court.2 The district court committed no plain error by failing to hold that Rules
413 and 414 violated Adletas right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
AFFIRMED.
Adleta does not even cite out-of-circuit authority holding that Rules 413 and 414 violate a
defendants right to due process. The two decisions on point that he does cite both reject due
process challenges to those rules. See United States v. Mound, 149 F.3d 799, 80001 (8th Cir.
1998); United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 87984 (10th Cir. 1998).