FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 30, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 6- 14 59 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock et No. 0 5- 22 51 0- CV-UUB
LEO C. HOL LINGSW ORTH,
Peti ti on er-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, Bi ll McC ol lu m , SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W al te r A. McNei l,
Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees
.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - BEFORE BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
. BY THE COURT:
O n D e c e mb er 30 , 20 08 , th is Co ur t gr an te d App el le es ’ m ot io n to st ay th i s
ap pe al pe nd in g th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s di sp os it io n of Ji m en ez v. Q u art erm an , S.Ct

. Doc ke t No . 07 -6 98 4.On Ja nu ary 13 , 20 09 , th e Su pr em e Co ur t iss ue d it s de ci si on in Ji m en ez. See

Ji m en ez v . Quar te rm an , _ U.S. _ , 12 9 S .Ct. 6 81 (20 09 ). The C ou rt h el d t ha t, ...[W ]here a st at e co ur t gr an ts a c r i mi n a l de fen da nt th e rig ht to fil e an

ou t-o f-t im e di rect ap pe al du rin g st at e co ll at eral rev ie w , bu t be fo re th e de fen da nt ha s fir st so ug ht fed eral ha be as rel ie f, hi s jud gm en t is no t y et “ fin al ”
fo r pu rp os es of [2 8 U

. S

. C

. ] § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A). In su ch a cas e, “ th e da te on whi ch th e jud gm en t be cam e fin al by th e co n cl us io n of di rect rev ie w or th e

ex pi rat io n of th e ti m e fo r se ek in g su ch rev ie w” m us t refl ect th e co nc lu si on of
th e ou t-o f-t im e di rect ap pe al , or th e ex pi rat io n of the ti m e fo r se ek in g rev ie w of th at ap pe al

. Id ., 1 29 S. Ct . a t 68 6– 87

. Dire ct rev ie w of t he ou t-o f-t im e ap pe al co nc lu de s whe n th e Su pr em e Co ur t affi rm s a co nv ic ti on on th e m eri ts on di rect rev ie w or de ni es a
pe ti ti on fo r a writ of cert io rari , or , i f th e pr is on er el ect s no t to pu rs ue cert io rari

rev ie w, when th e ti m e fo r se ek in g c ert io rari ex pi res . Id. at 68 5– 86

. On Feb ru ary 24 , 20 09 , App el le es fil ed a m ot io n t o rem an d fo r fu rth er
pr oc eed in gs in li gh t of Ji m en ez v. Qua rte rm an
. Bec au se App el le es co nc ed e in th ei r

m ot io n th at , un de r Jim en ez v. Qua rte rm an , App el la nt ’s pe ti ti on is no t ti m e-b arre d, th e

m ot io n i s co ns tru ed as a co nf es si on of e rro r. Appe lla nt obj ec ts to A

pp el le es ’ m ot io n to th e ex te nt th at App el le es su gg es t th at

2t h e d i st ric t co ur t, rat he r th an th is Co ur t, sh ou ld de ci de whe th er, in th e li gh t o f

Ji m en ez v. Qua rte rm an , th e pe ti ti on is ti m e-b arre d; th is ob jecti on is co n s t r u e d a s a

m ot io n to va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l or de r b e f o r e rem an di ng fo r fu rth er
pr oc eed in gs
. App el la nt ’s m ot io n to va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l or de r is G RA N TED.
The Ju ly 1 7, 20 06 , o rd er gr an ti ng rev ie w o f th e m ag is tra t e ’s s u p p l em en ta l or de r to sh ow cau se an d di sm is si ng App el la nt ’s pe ti ti on as ti m e-b arre d is he reb y VACATED. App e l l e e s’ m ot io n fo r rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs in li gh t of Ji m en ez v. Qua rte rm an is als o GRANTED. App el la nt ha s as ke d th is Co ur t to pu bl is h it s de ci si on on th e in st an t m ot io ns
. App el la nt ’s m ot io n fo r pu bl ic at io n i s GRANTED.

3