Court Opinion

ID: 9946115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 14:00:36.927053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.974736
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13056    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 02/29/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13056
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       BRODERICK TRAMAINE YOUNG,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00168-KD-B-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13056      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 02/29/2024     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-13056

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              We issued a jurisdictional question (“JQ”) about the validity
       of this appeal that Broderick Young filed on September 15, 2023,
       given the district court’s September 22, 2023, order vacating the
       original judgment and its entry of an amended judgment on Octo-
       ber 19, 2023. The government responded that this appeal should
       be dismissed as moot and that Young may file a new appeal from
       the amended judgment. Young has filed a new, separate appeal
       from the amended judgment within the extended time period set
       by the district court.
               We agree that this appeal is moot in light of the district
       court’s order vacating the original judgment. See Zinni v. ER Solu-
       tions, 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a federal
       court has no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or
       abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which
       cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it); Friends of Ev-
       erglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir.
       2009) (“An issue is moot ‘when it no longer presents a live contro-
       versy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.’”).
              Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.