Court Opinion

ID: 9930163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 15:01:00.369124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:04:29.402324
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10016    Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 02/06/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 24-10016
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JAMES ARTHUR VAN MEERTEN,
                                                   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. 6:18-cv-02099-CEM-DCI,
                          6:17-cr-00198-CEM-DCI-1
USCA11 Case: 24-10016         Document: 11-1        Date Filed: 02/06/2024         Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       24-10016

                               ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. James Van Meerten, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
       peals from a “final judgment entered [by the district court] on Oc-
       tober 18, 2023.” No such judgment exists in this case. The final
       judgment disposing of Van Meerten’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was
       entered on August 26, 2021. Van Meerten timely appealed that
       judgment and, in appeal number 21-13205, we denied a certificate
       of appealability. There was not any activity in this § 2255 action
       after the appeal concluded and before Van Meerten filed the instant
       appeal.
              To the extent Van Meerten again seeks to appeal the § 2255
       judgment, his appeal is duplicative and untimely. We may use our
       inherent administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation in
       order to avoid wasting judicial resources. Colo. River Water Conser-
       vation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817–18 (1976); accord I.A.
       Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir.
       1986). Another appeal of the § 2255 judgment would be duplica-
       tive. See United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) 1

       1 We are bound by decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

       Circuit issued before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206
       (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 24-10016      Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 02/06/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       24-10016               Opinion of the Court                          3

       (noting that an appellant is not generally entitled to two appeals
       from the same judgment).
              Further, the 60-day statutory time limit required Van
       Meerten to file a notice of appeal from the August 26, 2021 judg-
       ment on or before October 25, 2021. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R.
       App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, Van Meerten did not file this notice
       of appeal until January 2, 2024. Accordingly, even if it was not du-
       plicative, 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).
              To the extent Van Meerten intends to appeal the district
       court’s October 18, 2023 order denying, in his separate criminal
       case, his motion to alter or amend the § 2255 judgment, there is a
       pending appeal from that order. Indeed, Van Meerten listed that
       appeal number—23-13774—on the instant notice of appeal.
             All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for re-
       hearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other
       requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.