FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, Jr., United States Senior District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ge org ia, sitting by desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 04- 1283 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 02-61738-CV-CM A MOHAMED MOHAMED, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us
PUBLIX SUPER M ARKETS, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rnD ist ri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J an ua ry 18, 200 6)
Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BA RK E T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge , a nd H U

N T , S en ior * District Judge. PE R CU RIA M:2

Moh am ed

Mo ha m ed

appe al s th e low er co urt’ s deni al of his post -tri al m oti ons,
an d he c ont en ds tha t the D ist ri ct Co urt com m itt ed re ve rs ibl e er

ro r in fa shi oni ng t he j ury instruction s. H e also argues that the j ury ’ s d et er m i n at i on that he was entitled to no re lie f on hi s F ai r L ab or S ta nda rd s A ct

c la im w as c ont rary

to the c le ar

w ei ght of t h e e v i d e n c e . F o r

t h e r e a s o n s t h a t f

o l l o w , w e a f

f i r m.

BACKGRO UND Moh am ed

f ile d th is ac tio n aga ins t his for m er em plo y er , P ubl ix S upe rm ar

ke ts, Inc. , a lleging rac ial and ethnic discrim ination and retaliation. A dditi onally , he raised a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Ac t, alleging that he did not receive his final pa y ch ec k. F oll ow ing athr ee -d ay tr ia l, the j ur

y re tur ne d a ve rd ic t in fa vor of

P ubl ix
on a ll co unt s. Th e Di s t rict Cou rt entere d judgm ent on April 30, and Moham ed tim ely filed
a not i c e o f ap p e a l o n M a y 2 8 , 2 0 0 4
. T h e r e a f t e r , M o h a m e d f

i l e d w i t h t h i s Co ur t a
m otion to relinquis h jurisdiction to allow the District Court to entertain pos t-trial
m oti ons. I n th at m oti on, he cl ai m ed tha t the re ha d bee n cer ta in i rr eg ula ri tie s inthe
m an ne r in w hic h th e j udgm en t w as iss ue d a nd d oc ke te d w hic h c au se d him to m iss his deadline to file the post-trial m otion s. By Or der dated Se ptem

ber 8, 2004 , this Court granted the m otion and stay ed the appeal. Moham ed then filed i n the District Court3

a Ru le 60( b) m oti on, w hic h th e D ist ri ct Co urt co ns id ered a nd d en ie d. A ft er the D ist ri ct Co urt de nie d A ppe llant’ s Rule 60( b) m oti on, w e lif te d the sta y , thu s a llo w ing thi s a ppe al to pr oc ee d. H e did

not appe al the D ist ri ct

Co urt’ s de nia l of

his Ru le 60( b)
m ot io n.

DISC US SION T he Co urt no te s in iti al ly tha t w e do n ot h av e juri sd ic tio n to e nte rt ai n A ppe llant’ s f

ir st e num er at ion of

e rr or w hic h conc er

ns t he D ist ri ct

Co urt’ s de nia l of his Rule 60(b) m otion
. W hen a Rule 60(b) m otion is filed after t he notice of appeal fr om the und er ly ing j udgm en t, ase pa ra te not ic e of ap pe al is re qui re d in or de r to pr es er ve the de nia l of

the Ru le 60( b) m oti on f

or appe lla te r ev ie w . S ee W ill ia m s v. Ch at er , 87 F
. 3d 7 02, 705 ( 5th Ci r. 1996 ); G of fm an v. G ro ss, 59 F
. 3d 6 68, 672 -7 3 ( 7th Cir. 1995 ); K arra s v. K arra s, 16 F. 3d 24 5, 247 (8th C ir. 1994 ); see also Stone v. IN S, 514 U
. S. 386 , 401 ( 1995 ) (n oti ng, in a dif fe re nt c ont ex t, that the de nia l of aRu le 60( b) m oti on i s a

ppe al ab le a s ase pa ra te , f

ina l or de r)
. Be ca

use A ppe llant d id n ot f

ile
a se pa ra te not ic e of ap pe al , he ca nnot ch al le nge the D ist ri ct Co urt’ s de nia l of his Ru le 60( b) m oti on. A s fo r the re m ai nin g iss ue s ra ise d in thi s ap pe al , w e ca nn ot m ea nin gf ull y
re vie w the m be cau se Mo ha m ed ha s no t pr ovi de d a n a de qua te r ec or d. H e did not4

o r d e r at r a n s c r i p t o f

t h e e n t i r e t r i a l ; r a t h e r , h e h a s p r o v i d e d t h e C o u r t wi t h o n l y a transcript of his own direct e xam ination and a transcript of the c harge confer ence. T his Co urt r ev ie w s “ a j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t t o de te rm ine w he the r rea so nable a nd im partial m inds cou ld reach the conclus ion the j ury expressed in its verdict.” Par ker
v. Scra p Metal Processors, Inc. , 386 F. 3d 993, 1010 (11th Cir
. 2004 ). “ The ver dict
m ust stand unless th ere is no su bstantia l ev i d ence to suppo rt it.” Id. (internal quot ations om itted). He re, Moham ed failed to provide us w ith a com p l et e t rial t ra n s cr i p t , m ak i n g i t i m

p o s s i b l e fo r us t o co n du ct a mea n i n g fu l re v i ew o f t h e ju ry’s
ve rd ic t on the Fa ir L ab or St an da rd s A ct cl ai m . S im ilarl y , w ith out the be ne fi t of

the trial transcript, we cannot determ ine whether the ch al l en ged instructio n was
w ar rante d in lig ht of the ev ide nc e at tr ia l. Se e Mc K en zi e v. Be nto n, 388 F
. 3d 1 342, 1353 ( 10t h C ir
. 200 4) (s ta tin g tha t in re vie w ing aD ist ri ct Co urt’ s j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns, the appellate court m

ust loo k to the entire re cord as a w hole). F or this reason, w e ar e
co m pe lle d to a ff

irm on t he se gr ound s.

AF FIR MED
.