[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 21

- 11961
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
MARIO ALBO LARA,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondents

- Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Flor ida USCA11 Case: 21-11961 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 1 of 52 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11961

D.C. Docket No. 1:16

- cv

- 22121

- KMW

____________________
Before W ILSON , L UCK , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM :
Antonio Lara appeals the district court ’s dismissal of his section 2254 habeas petition

. Because his brief fails to address the sole issue we certified for appeal , we affirm

. Lara is serving a life sentence for convictions in Florida state

court for first degree murder, second degree murder, and sexual battery

. Although Lara’s conviction s became final in 1998, he filed

a 2011 moti on in the state circuit court to correct his sentence . The

state circuit court granted partial relief, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed in March 2013. See Lara v. State ( Lara I ) , 109 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013). In September 2012, Lara delivered a second motion for state postconviction relief to prison officials to file in state court, although it apparently was not docketed until April 2015. The state circuit court denied thi s second motion for postconviction relief, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed in November 2015

. See Lara v. State ( Lara II ) , 179 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). In June 2016, Lara filed a section 2254 habeas petition in the district court

. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Lara’s habeas petition as untimely because, even though Lara I was a new sentence and reset the statutory deadline
, Lara had not filed his petition within a year of when the new sentence became final

. USCA11 Case: 21-11961 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 2 of 521

- 11961 Opinion of the Court 3
The magist rate judge also recommended finding that Lara II did not toll Lara’s time to file a habeas petition

. E ven though the Florida Department of Corrections had stamped the motion in Lara II as received in September 2012, the magistrate judge explained, that motion did not toll the statutory deadline that Lara I triggered because it was not docketed until 2015

. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed Lara’s habeas petitio n as untimely. W e issued a certificate of appealability on a single question : whether the district court misapplied the prisoner mailbox rule toLara’s second motion for state postconviction relief and thus erroneously concluded that Lara II did not toll Lara’s eligibility to bring a habeas petition.

Lara initially failed to file an appellate brief , so we dismissed his appeal for lack of prosecution. T he dismissal , though, didn’t last long. Lara moved to reinstate his appeal, and we granted his motion and set a briefing schedule

. But when Lara filed his opening brief on appeal, it did not address the certified question. Instead, Lara argued , again, that we should reinstate his appeal

— something we’d already done. And even though the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections pointed out Lara’s failure to address the district court’s interpretation of the prisoner mailbox rule, Lara did not f ile a reply brief or move to file a corrected brief. USCA11 Case: 21-11961 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 3 of 54 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11961
To preserve an issue on appeal, Lara had to “‘plainly andprominently’ raise it by ‘devoting a discrete section of his argument’ to the claim” in his opening brief. United States v. Montenegro , 1 F.4th 940, 944 n.3 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Atkins v. Singletary , 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining that habeas claims not addressed on appeal are forfeited)

. Here, Lara ’s brief does not even mention the district court’s order , so he has for feited any challenge to it . The argument section of Lara’s briefis devoted entirely to explaining why his appeal should be reinstated. But we already reinstated his appeal; the sole issue Lara was directed to address was whether the district court misap plied the prisoner mailbox rule and therefore erred by finding his habeas petition untimely. Lara di dn’t even file a reply brief after the Secretary pointed out that he hadn’t addressed the timeliness issue. By failing to address that issue, Lara has now abandoned it. See Atkins
, 965 F.2d at 955 n.1. We must affirm. 1

1 Although, “[t] ypically, issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned ,” we do “ have the ability to resurrect forfeited issues sua sponte in extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Campbell , 26 F.4th 860, 87 1

– 7 2 (11th Cir.) (quotation omitted)
, cert. denied
, 1 43 S. Ct. 95 (2022)

. Here, the circumstances of Lara’s case are not extraordinary because , even if timely, his habeas claims are jurisdictionally barred, not cognizable, and have not been exhausted in the Florida state courts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (a) ( 3 ) (B) (“ Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Attorney Generalto effect the removal of any alien sentenced to actual incarceration, before release from the penitentiary or correctional institution where such alien is confined. ”); O ’ Sullivan v. Boerckel , 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“[W] e conclude that state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any USCA11 Case: 21-11961 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 4 of 521

- 11961 Opinion of the Court 5

AFFIRMED.

constitutional issues by invokin g one complete round of the State ’ s established appellate review process. ”); Jordan v. Sec ’ y, Dep ’ t of Corr. , 485 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[O] ur precedent forbids granting habeas relief based upon a claim of actual innocence, anyway, at least in non

- capital cases. ”)

. USCA11 Case: 21-11961 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 5 of 5