[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15707

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 4:16-cv-00153-WTM-GRS,

4:05-cr-00139-WTM-GRS-1

JERRY ORENTHAL GREEN, 

 Petitioner - Appellee,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 21, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-15707 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Jerry Orenthal Green brought a successive petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e). Specifically, in his petition, Green contended that his 1994 convictions 

for robbery by intimidation1 should count as only one conviction for ACCA 

purposes and that his 1992 conviction for possession with intent to distribute2 does 

not constitute a predicate offense under the ACCA.3

 The District Court granted his 

petition, vacated his sentence, and ordered his release. The Government appeals 

the granting of that petition. It argues that the statute of limitations in § 2255 bars 

Green’s arguments.

4

 We affirm the decision of the District Court because the 

Government has waived the timeliness issue and does not otherwise challenge the 

District Court’s decision. 

In an appeal challenging a § 2255 ruling, we review a district court’s legal 

conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Murphy v. United

States, 634 F.3d 1303, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011). Any issues not briefed on appeal are 

 1 See Ga. Code Ann. § 16-8-41. 

2 See S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(b)(2). 

3 Green also brought claims under Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015), arguing that his previous convictions qualified as predicates only under the invalidated 

residual clause. 

4 The Government also contends that Green has failed to show that his ACCA sentence 

relied on the ACCA’s residual clause. See Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir.

2017).

Case: 17-15707 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

considered abandoned, and we will not consider them. Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), a federal prisoner may collaterally attack a 

sentence “imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 2255, however, contains a one-year statute of limitations that runs from the 

latest of four triggering events, including “the date on which the judgment of 

conviction becomes final.” Id. § 2255(f)(1). The time limitation for filing a 

§ 2255 motion is not jurisdictional and can be waived. See In re Jackson, 826 F.3d 

1343, 1348 (11th Cir. 2016); Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th 

Cir. 1999). 

With respect to a report and recommendation (“R&R”) issued by a 

magistrate judge, the rules of this Circuit provide:

A party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the

right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed 

of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for 

failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the 

court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests 

of justice. 

11th Cir. R. 3-1. Thus, under our Circuit rules, both parties must object to a 

magistrate judge’s legal conclusions to preserve their right to appeal them. 

Case: 17-15707 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Green’s challenges to his 1992 and 1994 convictions are not time barred. 

The Government raised timeliness as a defense to Green’s § 2255 motion. But the 

Government did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s failure to address timeliness

in his R&R,5 even though the Magistrate Judge informed the parties as to the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. As a 

result, the District Court did not have an opportunity to address the timeliness of 

Green’s challenges,

6

 and the Government waived its right to appeal that issue.

7

 

On appeal, the Government makes no challenge to the District Court’s ruling

that Green’s 1992 conviction does not qualify as an ACCA predicate. It has 

waived that argument as well. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680–81. The decision of the 

District Court therefore stands. Green could not have qualified for an ACCA 

enhancement since he lacked the three necessary predicate offenses. 

AFFIRMED.

 5 The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R but then issued a revised R&R after Green 

objected to the first one. 

6 The District Court adopted the revised R&R in part and remanded the case to the 

Magistrate Judge to consider whether Green’s convictions for robbery by intimidation were 

separate crimes for ACCA purposes. See United States v. Longoria, 874 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th 

Cir. 2017). Before the Magistrate Judge addressed this issue, the Government conceded to the 

District Court that Green’s 1994 convictions for robbery by intimidation should count as one 

conviction for ACCA purposes. The District Court therefore vacated Green’s sentence and 

sentenced him to time served because he lacked the necessary predicate offenses for an ACCA

enhancement.

7 We could still examine the timeliness issue for clear error if the “interests of justice” 

required it. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. But the Government did not argue in its brief that the interests of 

justice warrant examining the timeliness issue. This argument is waived. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 

680–81. 

Case: 17-15707 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 4 of 4