Court Opinion

ID: 9865748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 20:00:50.71701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:14.104425
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12325    Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 09/25/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12325
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ELIZABETH KORCZ,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-08002-RDP
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12325       Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-12325

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. The 60-day statutory time limit required Elizabeth Korcz to
       file a notice of appeal from the district court’s April 18, 2023 mem-
       orandum opinion and separate order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255
       motion to vacate on or before June 20, 2023. See 28 U.S.C.
       § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 26(a)(1)(C). However, Korcz
       did not file her notice of appeal until July 11, 2023.
               Further, the district court entered its final order in a docu-
       ment separate and apart from its accompanying memorandum
       opinion, so the time to appeal began to run that day—April 18,
       2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) (providing that every judgment must
       generally “be set out in a separate document”); Fed. R. App. P.
       4(a)(7) (stating that when a separate document is required, a judg-
       ment or order is deemed entered for timeliness purposes when it is
       set forth on a separate document or 150 days have passed from en-
       try of the judgment or order in the civil docket, whichever is ear-
       lier); State Nat’l Bank of El Paso v. United States, 488 F.2d 890, 892-93
       (5th Cir. 1974); Weinberger v. United States, 559 F.2d 401, 402 & n.1
       (5th Cir. 1977); Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 937 F.2d 1556, 1560
       (11th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and
       cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Ad-
       min., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
USCA11 Case: 23-12325    Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 09/25/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       23-12325             Opinion of the Court                      3

              All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 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.