[DO NOT PUBLISH]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

________________________ No. 19

- 13983 Non

- Argumen t Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:16

- cr - 00502

- JSM

- AEP

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS, Defendant

- Appellant.

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

________________________ (August 4, 2020) Before GRANT, LUCK and BLACK, Circuit Judges
. PER CURIAM : Priscilla Ann Ellis appeals from the district court’s denial of her post

conviction motion to dismiss the indictment in one of her two criminal cases based

Case: 19-13983 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 1 of 62 on a violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. On appeal, the government has mo ved to dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, for summary affirmance in part, and to stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of its motion. I. The government’s motion to partially dismiss this appeal is GRANTED. Ellis appealed from the district court’s order denying her post

- conviction motion to vacate or set aside her superseding indictment . Nonetheless, portions of her merits brief on appeal appear to challenge the underlying validity of her convictions and sentences
. Ellis’s merits brief also appears to challenge the imposition of special administrative
measures (“SAMs”) on her custodial sentence, which she has challenged through numerous other motions in the district court
. To the extent Ellis has attempted to challenge the Decem ber 2019 order denying her various SAMs , her October 2019 NOA is not effective to appeal that order. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1); Bogle v. Orange Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs , 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (“ Rule 3(c) requires that a notice of appeal design ate an existent judgment or order, not one that is merely expected or that is, or should be, within the appellant’s contemplation when the notice of appeal is filed.” )
. Additionally, Ellis’s October 2019 NOA is untimely to directly appeal her October 2017 and January 2018 convictions and sentences. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)

Case: 19-13983 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 2 of 63 (requiring a defendant’s notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order being appealed )
. Although the time limit to file a notice of appeal in criminal cases is not jurisdictional, and instead represents a claim

- processing rule, this Court “must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b)” if the government objects to the timeliness of a criminal app eal. See United States v. Lopez , 562 F.3d 1309, 1313

– 14 (11th Cir. 2009). Dismissing the appeal as to the se orders is also appropriate because this appeal is duplicative of Ellis’s direct appeal from the December 2019 SAMs order and her direct appeals fr om both criminal judgments. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord , 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) (noting “ that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits”); United States v. Arlt , 567 F.2d 1 295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) 1 (noting an “[a]ppellant is not entitled to two appeals”). II. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no s ubstantial question as to the

1 We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Pritchard , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc )
.

Case: 19-13983 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 3 of 64 outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)
. We review the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Palomino Garcia , 606 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2010). Moreover, we review a claim under the Speedy Trial Act de novo
. United States v. Williams , 314 F.3d 552, 556 (11th Cir. 2002).

“ [ W ] e may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Al

- Arian , 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation s omitted). “ Pro se pleadings are held to a l ess stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, t herefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). U nder the law

- of

- the

- case doctrine, both the district court and our Court are bound by findings of fact and conclusions of law that we made on a prior appeal of the same case unless “(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applic able to that issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.” United States v. Stinson , 97 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996). A nd if a defendant omits an issue from a prior appeal in the same case, the defendant is “ deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later

Case: 19-13983 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 4 of 65 time.” United States v. Escobar

- Urrego , 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation s omitted). We GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance as to Ellis’s challenge to t he district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment. The government is correct as a matter of law that the law

- of

- the

- case doctrine bars Ellis’s remaining challenges to her indictment. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. , 406 F.2d at 1162 . Althou gh Ellis’s Speedy Trial Act claim differs slightly from the claim she raised in her direct appeal in her murder

- for

- hire case, the law

- of

- the

- case doctrine bars defendants from raising claims that they could have raised, but did not raise, during a direct appeal of the same case. See Escobar

- Urrego , 110 F.3d at 1560. And the basis of her challenges to her convictions and sentences, namely that the evidence was insufficient to convict her, existed at the time that she filed her direct appeal. Thus, she co uld have raised those challenges in that appeal. Because she did not do so, the law

- of

- the

- case doctrine bars her from raising those challenges in a collateral post

- conviction motion. See id. While the district court’s denial order addressed only Ellis’ s challenges to her indictment

— via reference to its prior orders denying similar motions on the merits

— we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Al

- Arian , 514 F.3d at 1189
. Th us , as there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case , we GRANT t he government’s motion for summary affirmance as to Ellis’s challenges

Case: 19-13983 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 5 of 66 to her indictment, convictions, and sentences. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. , 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, we DENY the government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule , and all other pending motions, as moot .

Case: 19-13983 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 6 of 6