[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 11165 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:05

- cr - 00108

- LSC

- SRW

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

versus GEORGE HOEY MORRIS, a.k.a. Johnny Ray Fortune , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________ (June 11, 2013) Before WILSON , PRYOR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11165 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 1 of 32 George Hoey Morris appeals pro se the denial of his motion s for a new trial

as untimely. Morris sought a new trial based on newly

- discovered evidence

. Fed.
R. C r i m . P. 33(b)(1). We affirm.
T he government argues that we should dismiss Morris ’s appeal because his written notice was untimely , but we disagree. Under the mailbox rule, a notice of appeal filed pro se is treated as filed on the date the inmate delivers hi s notice to the prison authorities. Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2382 (1988). The district court entered its order denying Morris’s post

- trial motion s on January 5, 2012, and Morris submitted to prison officials a notice of intent to appeal on January 1 7 , 2012

. Because Morris’s notice states that he intends to appeal the denial of his post

- trial motion s , the notice satisfies the requirements for a written notice of appeal, under Fede ral Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). See United States v. Ward , 696 F.2d 1315 , 1318 & n.2 (11th Cir. 1983 ). Morris’ s notice of appeal was timely. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morris’s motion s for a new trial as untimely. M orris a cknowledge s that he file d his motion s more than three years after his convictions , see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1) , and his argument s for equitable tolling or excusable neglect fail

. Morris argue s that h is incarceration in various jails and his involuntary commitment in a mental institution for ten months after his conviction constituted a “legal disability” that

Case: 12-11165 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 2 of 33 tolled the period to move for a new trial, but Morris admitted in an affidavit that he filed complaints against both his counsel and th e prosecutor during this period

. Morris also argue s that his appellate counsel “ignored” h is allegedly newly

discovered evidence and refused to file a timely post

- trial mo tion , but “[ c]ounsel’ s misunderstanding of the law cannot constitute excusable neglect” to extend a deadline under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B)

. United States v. Snipes , 611 F.3d 855 , 865 ( 11 th Cir

. 2010 ) ( internal citation and quotation marks omitted). An d Morris argue s that the prosecutor interfered with his ability to file a timely motion for a new trial by causing trial counsel to withdraw from the case, but the district court appointed new counsel the same day that it granted trial counsel’s motion to withdraw.
We AFFIRM the denial of Morris’s motion for a new trial as untimely. Case: 12-11165 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 3 of 3