FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 10, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 11 86 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 8- cr-0 01 17 -ASG-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ALFRED WAYNE LE E, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll Defen dant- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 10 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Alfr edW ay

ne Lee, pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p ro se m ot io n t o re vi se or c orrecthi s Pr es en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSI” ).Lee t it le d h is in it ia l m ot io n a“ Mo ti on to Reque stforInju nc ti ve Rel ie f Pu rs ua ntto

42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3,” an d n am edth e Uni te d S ta te s Pr ob at io n Off ic e, th e Fed eral Bu reauof P ris on s (“ BOP”) , andBOP Dir ect orHarl ey G. Lapp in as d efen da nt s. Inli gh t o f th is ti tl e, th e m ot io n was fir stdo ck et edas aciv il m ot io n, b utwas l at er recl as si fie d a s cr im in al . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t hi s m ot io n o n F eb ru ary 22 , 20 10 , andLee fi le d aNot ic e o f App eal on Apri l 1 4, 2 01 0. 1 I. W e b eg in with Lee ’s con te nt io n t ha t we s ho ul d s tri ke th e g ov ern m en t’s op en in g b rie f be cau se th e g ov ern m en t o bt ai ne d asev en -d ay ex te ns io n t o fi le it s br ie f th ro ug h fr au d. Th e ti m e p res cri be d b y anord er t o p erfo rm

an y act , othe r th anth e fi li ng of ano ti ce o f ap pe al , m ay be ex te nd edforgo odcau se , eve n a fte r th atti m e h as ex pi red . Fed . R. App . P. 26 (b ). Als o, we m ay acton a m ot io n u nd er Ru le 26 (b ) wit ho utwait in g fo r a res po ns e fro m th e n on m ov in g p arty . Fed . R. App . P. 27 (b ). A part y

adve rs el y

affe ct edby the gra ntof an e xt en si on m ay on ly ch al le ng e th atgrantby fili ng a m ot io n t o re co ns id er, v acat e, orm od ify tha t ac ti on . Id .

We will presume that L ee f iled his notice of appe al on the day he signed it beca

use, as 1 the g overnme nt conce des, there is no evidence to the contra ry . Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 2Here, the go ve rn m en t re qu es te d a dd it io na l t im e aft er ex pe rie nc in g d iff ic ul ty lo cat in g d oc um en ts fro m Lee’s reco rdth atitde em edne ces sa ry forap pe al . Inhi s rep ly brie f, Lee arg ue s t ha t thi s re qu es t was m ad e in ba d fa ith. Be cau se Lee d id no t ch al le ng e o urde ci si onto gra ntth is ex te ns io n i n asep arat e m ot io n p ur su an t t o Ru le 27 (b ), ho wev er, we are un ab le to en te rta in it . See Fed . R. App . P. 27 (b ) (“ Tim el y op po si ti on fil edaft er the m ot io n i s g ran te d i n wh ol e o r in pa rt d oe s n ot co ns ti tu te a reque stto reco ns id er, v acat e, orm od ify the [ex te ns io n o f ti m e]; a m ot io n re qu es ti ng th atrel ie f m us t b e fi le d.” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Forth is reas on , we DENY Lee’ s re qu es t t o s tri ke th e g ov ern m en t’s b rie f. II. W e tu rnne xtto Lee’s un de rlyin g m ot io ns . The g ov ern m en t ar gu es th atwe la ckjuri sd ic ti on ov er Lee’s ap pe al be cau se itwas n otti m el y fil ed . Spe ci fic al ly, th e g ov ern m en t p oi nt s o utth atLee fi le d h is Not ic e o f App eal on Apri l 1 4, 2 01 0, an d c on te nd s t hi s i s wel l p as t b ot h t he 14 -d ay ap pe al pe rio d p ro vi de d i n F ed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 4 (b )(1 )(A)(I ), an d t he ex te nd edti m e th atwe are au th or iz edto pro vi de inRu le 4(b ). Lee arg ue s, i n re sp on se , th athi s m ot io n was or ig in al ly file d a s a c iv il m at te r an d was th eref or e subjec t t o the lo ng er wi nd ow i n whi chto ap pe al ina ci vi l m at te r. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s t ha t b ecau se th e Uni te d St at es is a na m edpa rty, und er Ru le 4(a )(1 )(B) he is th us en ti tl edto a 60 -d ay 3win do w inwhi chto fil e a No ti ce o f App eal . Lee fil edhi s No ti ce o f App eal 51 -

da y s af te r th e d is tri ctco urt’s Ord er, an d a s a r es ul t u nd er thi s ex te nd ed60 -d ay win do w, hi s No ti ce o f App eal wou ldbe ti m el y fil ed .

“ W e are requi redto ex am in e o urjuri sd ic ti on su a sp on te , andwe rev ie w juri sd ic ti on al is su es de no vo .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lop ez, 5 62 F.3d13 09 , 13 11 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on s o mit te d) . Eventh ou gh we ha ve cla rif ie d t ha t Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 4( b) is no t juris di ct io na l, we m us t en fo rce i t wh ere t he go ve rn m en t t im el y ch al le ng es a de fen da nt ’s Not ic e o f App eal . Id. at13 14 . Here, th e g ov ern m en t ti m el y ch al le ng edLee’s Not ic e o f App eal , andth eref or e we m us t d is mis s an y as pe ctof i t tha t i s cr im in al inna tu re. To the ex te ntth atLee se ek s a c iv il rem edy , we co nc lu de th atwe ha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er h is m ot io n. Id . Bu t ev ento th e ex te ntth atLee’s m ot io n c anbe ch arac te riz edas aciv il act io n, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l b ecau se he ha s n otpo in te d t o a ny ci vi l ac ti on th atwou lden ti tl e h im to rel ie f. Lee’s fir stm ot io n s ou gh t re li ef pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Se ct io n 1 98 3 i s i m pr op er, h owe ve r, be cau se Lee su edon ly feder al act or s. See Hartm anv. Mo or e, 54 7 U.S. 2 50 , 25 4 n .2, 1 26 S. Ct. 16 95 , 17 00 n.2 (20 06 ). Non ethe le ss , bec au se fed eral co urts ha ve “ anob li ga ti on to lo okbe hi ndth e labe l o f a m ot io n fi le d b y a pr o s e in m at e an d d et erm in e whe th er th e m ot io n i s, i n e ffec t, co gn iz ab le un de r a d iff eren t re m ed ia l s ta tu to ry 4fram ewo rk ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo rd an , 91 5 F .2d62 2, 6 24 –2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0)

(ci ta ti on om it te d) , we m

us t co ns id er wh ethe r Lee wo ul d b e en ti tl edto rel ie f if we rech arac te riz e h is m ot io n a s o ne bro ug htpu rs ua ntto Biv en s v . Six Unkno wn Fe d. Narco ti cs Agen ts , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 , 91 S. Ct. 1 99 9 (1 97 1) . Lee can no t s uc ceedon a Bi ve ns th eo ry . He see ks a rev is io n t o h is PSI, whi chth is Co urt can e ffec t o nl y by ord eri ng th e Pro ba ti on Offic e to pre pa re an am en de d P SI. Howe ve r, Bi ve ns do es no t p ro vi de a rem edy ag ai ns t fe de ral ag en ci es , F.D.I.C. v. Me y er, 5 10 U.S. 47 1, 4 86 , 11 4 S . Ct. 9 96 , 10 05 -0 6 (1 99 4) , an d t he refo re Lee c anno t re ly on B iv en s t o o bt ai n re li ef ag ai ns t ei th er the Fed eral Bu reauof P ris on s o r th e Uni te d S ta te s Pr ob at io n Off ic e o f th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Fl or id a. As a re su lt , eve n i f we rec ha ract eri ze h is m ot io n a s o ne bro ug htun de r Bi ve ns , he i s s ti ll un ab le to ob ta in rel ie f. 2 Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm . 3 AFFIR MED.

In reje ctingthis action, of cour se, we do not rule that L ee ma y never obtain relief

. As 2 the g overnme nt conce des, L ee ma y in theory be able to raise these claims in a sepa rate 18 U.S.C. § 2555 that is curre ntly

on rema nd to the district court. We express no opinion as to the merits of that proce eding . L ee a lso arg

ues that the district judg e abuse d his discretion in denying L ee’ s motion for 3 rec usal. L ee ha s not appea led this order, how ever , and we there fore will not consider this argument. 5