Court Opinion

ID: 9556149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 14:02:29.354239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:39.597669
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12170    Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 08/16/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12170
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       WILLIAM L. APGAR, JR.,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Defendant- Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket Nos. 5:21-mc-00017-JA-PRL,
                            5:21-mj-01088-PRL-1
USCA11 Case: 23-12170     Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12170

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. William Apgar filed a notice of appeal to the district court
       from the magistrate judge’s June 28, 2023 amended criminal judg-
       ment, and the district court transmitted the notice to us. However,
       we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate judge’s judg-
       ment entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3401, as an appeal from such
       a judgment must be taken to and heard by the district court first.
       See 18 U.S.C. § 3402; United States v. Pilati, 627 F.3d 1360, 1363-64
       (11th Cir. 2010); Midway Mfg. Co. v. Kruckenberg, 720 F.2d 653, 654
       (11th Cir. 1983).
              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.