Court Opinion

ID: 9404328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 19:01:21.715758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.195845
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11566   Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 06/22/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-11566
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      DARRELL MARK BABCOCK,
                                                   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 Nos. 2:20-cv-14263-KAM,
                            2:16-cr-14071-KAM-1
USCA11 Case: 23-11566     Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11566

                           ____________________

      Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. The statutory time limit required Darrell Babcock to file a
      notice of appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
      vacate on or before December 30, 2022, which was 60 days after
      the district court denied his motion for reconsideration filed pursu-
      ant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See 28 U.S.C.
      § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A), (c). However, Bab-
      cock did not file his motions for certificate of appealability, which
      may be construed as notices of appeal, until April 26, 2023, and May
      2, 2023, respectively.
             Additionally, there is no basis in the record for relief under
      Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6). Accord-
      ingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our ap-
      pellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296,
      1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely filing of a notice of
      appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we cannot
      entertain an appeal that is out of time). Finally, to the extent that
      Babcock challenges the district court’s May 2, 2023 order denying
      his motion for COA, an appeal from a district court’s denial of a
      COA is procedurally improper. See Pruitt v. United States, 274 F.3d
      1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that the procedurally proper
USCA11 Case: 23-11566     Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 3 of 3

      23-11566               Opinion of the Court                        3

      course of action for a party denied a COA by the district court is to
      file a renewed application for a COA with us).
             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.