Court Opinion

ID: 9905163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:03:08.144523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:52.228173
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13090   Document: 11-1    Date Filed: 11/28/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13090
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       RODNEY KEATON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
       DIRECTOR/POLICE CHIEF, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       R. MUNIA,
       Oﬃce #41776,
       SERGEANT PASTOR,
       #28581 [FNU],
       MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
USCA11 Case: 23-13090      Document: 11-1       Date Filed: 11/28/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-13090

       CITY OF MIAMI POLICE CHIEF,
       MORALES A. MANUEL,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-22859-DPG
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. The 30-day statutory time limit required Rodney Keaton to
       file a notice of appeal from the district court’s August 18, 2023, final
       judgment on or before September 18, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a);
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, Keaton did not file a notice
       of appeal until September 19, 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 Keaton
       did not move to extend or reopen the appeal period or indicate in
       his notice of appeal that he failed to receive formal notice of the
       entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (providing that a
       party may move to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal
USCA11 Case: 23-13090     Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       23-13090               Opinion of the Court                        3

       within 30 days of entry of final judgment); Sanders v. United States,
       113 F.3d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that we will construe a
       late pro se notice of appeal as a motion to reopen the appeal period
       under Rule 4(a)(6) if the appellant indicates that he did not receive
       notice of the entry of an order or judgment within 21 days of its
       entry). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot
       invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous.
       Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017).
              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.