Court Opinion

ID: 9906568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 16:01:40.90548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:12.774810
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13400    Document: 8-1      Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13400
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

      BLAKE DORR,
                                                    Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                 Respondents-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-00988-ACC-DCI
USCA11 Case: 23-13400     Document: 8-1     Date Filed: 12/04/2023     Page: 2 of 2

      2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13400

                           ____________________

      Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. The 30-day statutory time limit required Blake Dorr to ﬁle a
      notice of appeal from the district court’s September 12, 2023, ﬁnal
      judgment on or before October 12, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a);
      Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, Dorr did not ﬁle his notice of
      appeal until October 13, 2023.
             Further, there is no basis in the record for relief under Fed-
      eral Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6) because Dorr
      did not move to extend or reopen the appeal period. See Fed. R.
      App. P. 4(a)(5), (6). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely
      and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neigh-
      borhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017); Green v. Drug
      Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
             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.