United States v. Frank Marrupe

The recent Eleventh Circuit decision in *United States v. Frank Marrupe*, designated as "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" and appearing on the "Non-Argument Calendar," serves as a timely reminder of the procedural nuances governing appellate practice in the Eleventh Circuit. While the specific facts of the case remain undisclosed due to its unpublished status, the designation itself carries significant implications for legal professionals. Under Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, though they may be cited as persuasive authority. This article explores the procedural framework surrounding such decisions, their limited precedential value, and the practical considerations for attorneys navigating the Eleventh Circuit's appellate landscape.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued a decision in *United States v. Frank Marrupe*, Case No. 23-11748, on July 8, 2026. Notably, the opinion is marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" and was decided on the court's "Non-Argument Calendar." While the substantive details of the case are not publicly available in a precedential format, the procedural posture of this ruling offers a valuable opportunity to examine the Eleventh Circuit's practices regarding unpublished opinions and non-argument calendar cases. For practicing attorneys, understanding these designations is crucial, as they dictate the precedential weight and strategic utility of such decisions.

The Eleventh Circuit, like many federal appellate courts, employs a system of classifying opinions based on their perceived precedential value and the necessity of oral argument. This system is primarily governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 36 and the Eleventh Circuit's own local rules, particularly Rule 36-2 concerning unpublished opinions and its Internal Operating Procedures (I.O.P.) related to calendaring. The court's policy aims to manage its substantial caseload efficiently and to prevent the "unlimited proliferation of published opinions" that could "impair the development of the cohesive body of law." Consequently, only opinions deemed to have precedential value are typically selected for publication by a majority of the panel.

Cases placed on the "Non-Argument Calendar" are those where the court's staff attorney determines that oral argument is not warranted. This typically occurs when the legal issues are straightforward, controlled by existing precedent, or where oral discussion with counsel would not significantly aid the court's resolution of the appeal. This procedural screening mechanism allows the court to allocate its limited oral argument time to more complex or novel cases, further streamlining its appellate review process.

The designation of *United States v. Frank Marrupe* as "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" means that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2, the opinion is not considered binding precedent. This is a critical distinction for legal practitioners. Unlike published opinions, which are binding on subsequent panels and lower courts within the circuit, unpublished opinions do not establish new law or alter existing precedent. The court's Internal Operating Procedure 7 explicitly states that the court generally does not cite its own unpublished opinions precisely because they lack binding precedential value.

However, Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2 does permit the citation of unpublished opinions as "persuasive authority." This means that while a court is not obligated to follow an unpublished decision, an attorney may present it to illustrate a point, demonstrate how the court has previously handled similar facts, or to support an argument, particularly if no binding precedent directly addresses the issue. When citing an unpublished opinion not available on the internet, a copy must be attached to the brief, petition, motion, or response.

The "Non-Argument Calendar" designation further reinforces the limited scope of such a decision. Cases on this calendar are typically resolved based solely on the submitted briefs and record, without the benefit of oral advocacy. This suggests that the panel found the issues in *Marrupe* to be sufficiently clear or well-settled by existing law, obviating the need for oral argument. While the specific reasons for this classification in *Marrupe* are not detailed in the public record, it generally indicates that the appeal likely involved the application of established legal principles to particular facts, rather than the development of new legal doctrine.

The Eleventh Circuit's decision in *United States v. Frank Marrupe*, while specific to the parties involved, serves as a practical illustration of the court's procedural rules regarding unpublished opinions and non-argument calendar cases. For attorneys practicing in the Eleventh Circuit, it is imperative to understand that such decisions, though potentially offering insight into the court's reasoning on similar factual patterns, do not carry the weight of binding precedent. Relying on an unpublished opinion as if it were binding can be a critical misstep in legal argumentation.

Practitioners should meticulously distinguish between published and unpublished authority, using the latter judiciously as persuasive support where appropriate and always adhering to the specific citation requirements of Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2. While the outcome for Frank Marrupe is final, the broader legal community should view this decision as a procedural data point, reinforcing the established mechanisms by which the Eleventh Circuit manages its docket and articulates its jurisprudence. Attorneys should remain vigilant in monitoring the court's published opinions for binding guidance, recognizing that unpublished decisions, while part of the court's output, serve a distinct and limited role in the development of the law.