Case Name: Lawrence LOMBARDI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 04-12691; D.C. Docket Nos. 02-00360-CV-4-RH and 99-00071-CR-4-R
Parties: Lawrence LOMBARDI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
Lawrence LOMBARDI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-12691.
D.C. Docket Nos. 02-00360-CV-4-RH and 99-00071-CR-4-R.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 20, 2005.
Lawrence Lombardi, White Deer, PA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Non-Argument Calendar

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, appellant challenges the district court's decision rejecting his Fed. R.Crim.P. 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence as time-barred because the motion was not filed within the three-year limitations period the rule prescribes. Rule 33's limitations periods are jurisdictional. United States v. Bramlett, 116 F.3d 1403, 1405 (11th Cir.1997). The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant's motion.
AFFIRMED.