Opinion ID: 43721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Daphne Drive property

Text: The subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is a question of law and, 11 therefore, subject to de novo review. United States v. Perez, 956 F.2d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir. 1992). Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of cases and controversies. Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U.S. at 471, 102 S.Ct. at 757. (citations omitted). Under the law of the case doctrine, a legal decision made at one stage of the litigation, unchallenged in a subsequent appeal when the opportunity existed, becomes the law of the case for future stages of the same litigation, and the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Fed.R.App.P 4(a)(1)(B)(when United States is a party, notice of appeal must be filled within 60 days). The record reveals that the Government abandoned its intent to forfeiture the Daphne Drive property. Although Reedy filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s June 6, 2000 order, she did not challenge the district court’s resolution regarding the Daphne Drive property. Accordingly, Reedy waived that issue and her attempt to appeal it is untimely. Moreover, because the Government did not seize the Daphne Drive property and withdrew any claim to it, the title dispute over the property became a private matter between Reedy and other parties involved. The requirement of a case or controversy is not satisfied under these 12 circumstances; hence, we lack jurisdiction to review Reedy’s claim regarding the Daphne Drive property. AFFIRMED . 13