Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-22-12965/USCOURTS-ca11-22-12965-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pender Senatus
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12965

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PENDER SENATUS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cr-80029-KAM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12965 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12965

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pender Senatus appeals from his conviction and sentence for 

possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, for which judgment was entered on April 12, 2019. The government moves to 

dismiss this appeal as untimely. In response, Senatus acknowledges 

that his notice of appeal is untimely but asserts that we should not 

dismiss his appeal because he is entitled to equitable relief from 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)’s 14-day time limit.

We conclude that Senatus’s notice of appeal is untimely. Senatus’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on August 29, 2022, under 

the prison mailbox rule, more than 14 days after entry of judgment 

and more than 30 days after the expiration of the appeal period. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4), (c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 

748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). Because the government has 

raised the timeliness issue, we “must apply the time limits of Rule 

4(b)” and dismiss this appeal. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 

1313-14 (11th Cir. 2009). Senatus is not entitled to any equitable 

relief from Rule 4(b)’s time limit because, although Rule 4(b) is not 

jurisdictional, it is a mandatory claim-processing rule that is not 

subject to equitable tolling. See id.; Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 

586 U.S. 188, 192-94 (2019); Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116, 

121 (2017); Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1).

Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss and DISMISS this appeal as untimely.

USCA11 Case: 22-12965 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 Page: 2 of 2