FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 45 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -0 08 07 -J ES-DNF ROBERT HERRIM AN, Pl ai nt iff - App el lant , ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro be rt He rri m an , pro ceed in g pr o s e , bro ug htth is act io n a ga in stth e Uni te d St at es fora refu ndof f

ed eral in co m e ta xe s wi th he ldfro m hi s wag es forth e y ears20 02 , 20 06 , and20 07 . The Go ve rn m en t m ov edto di sm is s h is am en de d c om pl ai nt on th e g ro un d tha t Herriman’s cl ai m s wer e fri vo lo us , and , onDecem be r 3, 2 00 9, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d the co m pl ai ntfri vo lo us an d g ran te d the m ot io n wi th pr ejud ic e. On Dec em

be r 23 , 20 09 , Herri m anfil eda ti m el y m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d jud gm en t. Se eFed . R. Civ . P. 59 (e). Th e m ot io n s ta te d, in te r a li a , th atth e co urt ha d m is co ns tru edth e n atur e o f hi s s ui t an d thu s s ho ul d v acat e it s ju dg m en t an d pe rm ithi m

to am en d h is co m

pl ai ntto fram e th e p le ad in g o n the is su es of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n a ndbu rd enof p ro of . The co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n o n Ap ril 27 , 20 10 . The ne xtday , Apri l 2 8, Herriman fi le d am ot io n a sk in g the co urt t o d ecl are the law of th e cas e. The Go ve rn m en t re sp on de d, s ay in g tha t Herriman was m erel y arg ui ng hi s o rig in al cla im s. OnMay 20, 2 01 0, the co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th atHerri m anwas s im

pl y rear gu in g a ndrai si ng th e sa m e is su es as b efo re. On Ju ly 15, 2 01 0, Herriman to okth is ap pe al . Inciv il cas es , th e ti m el y

fil in g o f a n ot ic e o f ap pe al is a m an da to ry pr erequi si te to th e ex erci se of app el la te juri sd ic ti on . Rin aldo v. Co rb et t , 25 6 F .3d 12 76 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). In aciv il cas e whe re the Uni te d S ta te s o r it s ag en cy is a party, a no ti ce o f ap pe al m us t b e fi le d wi th in 60 da y s af te r th e jud gm en t o r or de r ap pe al edfro m

is en te red . Fed . R. App . P. 4(a )(1 )(B) . Rul e 4 (a)( 4) (A)

2id en ti fie s ce rta in po st -tr ia l m ot io ns th at , if t im el y fil ed , to ll th e ap pe al -fi li ng pe rio d. Se e Fed . R. App . P. 4(a )(4 )(A); Fed . R. App . P. 59 ; an d Bro wd er v. Dir ., Dep ’t o f Co rr . of Ill ., 43 4 U.S. 2 57 , 26 4, 9 8 S .Ct. 5 56 , 56 1, 5 4 L.Ed .2d52 1, 5 31 . The se in cl ud e a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d the jud gm en t an d aRu le 60 m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m

jud gm en t, b oth o f whi chto ll th e ap pe al -fi li ng pe rio d i f th ey are f il edwithi n 2 8 d ay s o f en try of the jud gm en t. Se e Fed . R. App . P. 4(a )(4 )(A); Fed . R. Civ . P. 59 (e). Anun ti m el y Ru le 4(a )(4 ) m ot io n d oe s n otto ll th e ti m e to ap pe al . Se e, e.g ., Pini on v. Dow C he m., U.S.A. , 92 8 F .2d15 22 , 15 25 -2 6 (1 1t h C ir. 19 91 ). In a dd it io n, s uc ces si ve to ll in g m ot io ns by the same party rai si ng subs tant ia ll y

th e sa m e g ro un ds forrel ie f do no t co nt in ue to to ll th e ti m e to ap pe al . W ri gh t v. Pr ef

erre d Res ea rc h, In c. , 89 1 F .2d88 6, 8 89 -9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Furth erm or e, Fed . R. App . P. 3(c )(1 )(B) requi res th ata no ti ce o f ap pe al

“ de si gn at e th e jud gm en t, o rd er, o r pa rt t he reo f be in g app eal ed .” Ordi na ril y , th e fai lu re t o abi de by thi s re qu ire m en t wi ll pre cl ud e th is co urt fr om rev ie win g a ny jud gm en t o r or de r no t s o s pe ci fie d. McDo ugald v . Jen so n , 78 6 F .2d14 65 , 14 74 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . An ex pr es s d es ig na ti on of t he ord er ap pe al edfro m in fers th e la ckof i nt en t t o app eal un m en ti on edord ers . Ost erne ck v. E.T. Barwi ck In du stri es , In c. , 82 5 F .2d15 21 , 15 29 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Eve n i f we co ns tru e Herri m an ’s m ot io n t o d ecl are the law o f th e cas e as a 3Ru le 4(a )(4 ) m ot io n, i t d idno t t ol l the ap pe al -fi li ng pe rio d b ecau se itwas n otfil ed

withi n 2 8 d ay s o f en try of the fin al jud gm en t, an d i t ra is edsubs tant ia ll y th e sa m e gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f as hi s p rio r m ot io ns . Becau se hi s n ot ic e o f ap pe al was fi le d m or e th an60 da y s af

te r th e ti m e p res cri be d fo r ap pe al in g fr om th e fi na l ju dg m en t orfro m th e m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d the jud gm en t, we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w on ly the di stric t’s o rd er d en y in g Herriman’s m ot io n t o d ecl are the law o f th e cas e. 1 Mo reo ve r, si nc e Herri m an ’s no ti ce o f ap pe al ex pr es sl y de si gn at edon ly the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o d ecl are the law o f th e cas e, we in fer tha t h e d idno t in te ndto ap pe al th e o th er u ns pe ci fie d o rd ers . AFFIRMED.

Even if we wer e to enter tain Her riman’s a ppeal, wecould not consider his law -of- the- 1 case argument beca

use he ha s abandone d the argument by not advanc ing it in his brief. 4