Court Opinion

ID: 9404629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 17:01:08.404662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.901431
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13829    Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 06/23/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13829
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       TORRIE CHERMAINE AUSTIN,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-14270-RLR
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13829          Document: 11-1         Date Filed: 06/23/2023           Page: 2 of 2

       2                           Opinion of the Court                        22-13829

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. We previously construed Mr. Austin’s October 2022 motion
       for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal from the dis-
       trict court’s July 29, 2022 final judgment and remanded to the dis-
       trict court for the limited purpose of determining whether the ap-
       peal period should be reopened under Federal Rule of Appellate
       Procedure 4(a)(6). 1 The construed notice of appeal is untimely to
       challenge the final judgment, as it was filed after the statutory dead-
       line, and the district court declined to reopen the appeal period on
       limited remand. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(6), (c)(1); Green
       v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2010); see also
       Daniels v. United States, 809 F.3d 588, 589 (11th Cir. 2015). Accord-
       ingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
              No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies
       with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
       other applicable rules.

                1 The original notice of appeal evinced an intent to appeal from the
       district court’s October 31, 2022 order denying Mr. Austin’s motion for a cer-
       tificate of appealability but an appeal from a district court’s denial of a certifi-
       cate of appealability is procedurally improper. See Pruitt v. United States, 274
       F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Edwards v.
       United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1997).