Court Opinion

ID: 9556192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:01:49.777134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:22.257930
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11886    Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 08/15/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11886
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JEFFREY SPIVACK,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cr-80016-KAM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11886      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 08/15/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11886

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Jeffrey Spivack appeals from the district court’s May 18, 2023,
       order construing his motion to dismiss as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
       to vacate. That order is not final and appealable, however, because
       it did not end the litigation on the merits in the district court. See
       28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986
       (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends the litigation on the
       merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judg-
       ment). The district court has not ruled on the recharacterized
       § 2255 motion.
               Additionally, the district court’s May 18, 2023 order is not
       effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the
       case on the merits. Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th
       Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the liti-
       gation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, in-
       ter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judg-
       ment”).
              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.