Court Opinion

ID: 9840814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 15:02:22.216838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:53.734201
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12557    Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 09/20/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12557
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       PRINCE TOBURAS JERMAINE ROLLE,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket Nos. 6:21-cv-00473-GAP-RMN,
                            6:09-cr-103-GAP-GJK-1
USCA11 Case: 23-12557      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12557

                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Prince Rolle appeals the district court’s May 4, 2023, judg-
       ment denying his counseled 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion. Despite being
       represented by counsel, Rolle filed the notice of appeal pro se, and
       he signed and dated it July 21, 2023. The statutory time limit re-
       quired him to file the notice on or before July 3, 2023, 60 days after
       the district court’s judgment was entered. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b);
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The notice of appeal, deemed filed on
       July 21, 2023, is therefore untimely, and we lack jurisdiction. See
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314
       (11th Cir. 2014); Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296,
       1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
              Additionally, Rolle is not entitled to relief under Rule Fed-
       eral Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Although Rolle alleges
       that he did not personally receive notice of the court’s judgment,
       the clerk was required to serve notice on his attorney, and there is
       no indication that his counsel did not receive notice. See Fed. R.
       App. P. 4(a)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d), 5(b).
              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.