[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10817

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIE DISHON OBADIAH, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:20-cv-24229-BB,

1:19-cr-20321-BB-1

USCA11 Case: 23-10817 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 05/02/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10817

____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Dishon Obadiah appeals the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. The 

government concedes that the district court erred in concluding 

that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on his motion but argues that Obadiah abandoned the relevant issue and that we should affirm on an 

alternative basis. Because Obadiah did not abandon this issue and 

because the district court had jurisdiction, we reverse the district 

court’s dismissal and remand the case for the district court to consider the motion’s merits in the first instance.

A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s dismissal of a Rule 60(b) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Osbourne v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 

1261, 1264 n.3 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 

F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004)). “Instead, we may review such a 

dismissal as a ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Id. Moreover, 

we have an obligation to sua sponte assure ourselves of our own 

jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a lower court we are reviewing. 

See Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347, 1351 

(11th Cir. 1998). We review the district court’s legal conclusions 

about jurisdiction de novo. See Calderon v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc., 

771 F.3d 807, 810 (11th Cir. 2014).

USCA11 Case: 23-10817 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 05/02/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-10817 Opinion of the Court 3

An appellant abandons an issue by failing to challenge it on 

appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994). An 

appellant also abandons a claim when he presents it through only 

“passing references” or “in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 

739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue 

exists,” without more, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Id.

(quoting Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 

2009)). But we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

“[P]arties cannot waive [or forfeit] subject matter jurisdiction.” Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960 (11th Cir. 1999). And even 

if this issue could be abandoned, we do not read Obadiah’s pro se

brief to abandon it because Obadiah clearly stated in his brief that 

he is seeking review of the district court’s jurisdictional ruling on 

his Rule 60(b) motion and argued that point in this Court with citations to case law in his response to the government’s motion for 

summary affirmance. Thus, we address this jurisdictional point.

Generally, “the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction over all issues involved in the appeal.” Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2003). But this rule does 

not prevent the district court “from entertaining motions on matters collateral to those at issue on appeal,” id., or acting “in furtherance of the appeal,” id. (quoting Lairsey v. Advance Abrasives Co., 542 

F.2d 928, 930 (5th Cir. 1976)). Thus, although a district court cannot 

grant a Rule 60(b) motion after a notice of appeal has been filed, 

USCA11 Case: 23-10817 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 05/02/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10817

“district courts retain jurisdiction after the filing of a notice of appeal to entertain and deny a Rule 60(b) motion.” Id. at 1180.

Therefore, we have explained that a district court should 

consider a Rule 60(b) motion presented after a notice of appeal has 

been filed and assess its merits. See id. If the district court wants to 

deny the motion, it has jurisdiction to do so. See id. If the district 

court wants to grant the motion, it can indicate its belief that the 

arguments raised therein are meritorious after which the movant 

may petition us for remand. See id. After we remand and confer full 

jurisdiction on the district court, it may grant the motion. See id.

Here, as the government concedes, the district court erred 

in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The district court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of Obadiah’s motion and deny it 

or indicate that it wished to grant it. See id. at 1179–80. While we 

may affirm on any basis supported by the record, see Turlington v. 

Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F.3d 1428, 1433 n.9 (11th Cir. 1998), we

generally won’t consider issues the district court did not decide, see

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co., 40 F.4th 1295, 

1306 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting McKissick v. Busby, 936 F.2d 520, 522 

(11th Cir. 1991)) (citing Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th 

Cir. 2000)). Because the district court dismissed the motion for lack 

of jurisdiction and did not address its merits, we decline to consider 

the merits as an alternative basis for affirmance.

As in Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2003), we 

REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Obadiah’s Rule 60(b) 

motion and REMAND the case to the district court with 

USCA11 Case: 23-10817 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 05/02/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-10817 Opinion of the Court 5

instructions to consider the merits of that motion in the first instance. See id. at 1181.

USCA11 Case: 23-10817 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 05/02/2024 Page: 5 of 5