Court Opinion

ID: 9959948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 21:00:49.282633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.985146
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12157    Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12157
                          ____________________

       WILLIAM HAROLD WRIGHT, JR.,
                                                    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 No. 8:21-cv-02691-KKM-SPF
                          ____________________

       Before BRASHER and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 23-12157      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 04/12/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                        Order of the Court                  23-12157

       BY THE COURT:
               Upon review of the record and the responses to the jurisdic-
       tional question, this appeal is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of ju-
       risdiction as untimely. William Wright filed a notice of appeal,
       deemed filed on June 15, 2023, challenging the final order denying
       his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, interlocutory orders that merged into
       that final judgment, and multiple post-judgment orders.
               Wright’s June 15, 2023 notice of appeal is not timely to ap-
       peal from the February 15, 2023 final order and judgment or the
       interlocutory orders that merged into that judgment because it was
       not filed within 60 days of entry of that judgment. See Fed. R. App.
       P. 4(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). Only one of Wright’s post-judg-
       ment filings could serve as a timely tolling motion filed within 28
       days of the entry of judgment, but that March 14, 2023 filing was
       denied on March 22, 2023, more than 60 days before Wright filed
       his June 15 notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 4(A);
       28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). Wright’s subsequent filings could not toll the
       time to appeal from the final order and judgment for a second time.
       See Wansor v. George Hantscho Co., 570 F.2d 1202, 1206 & n.5 (5th
       Cir. 1978); Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th
       Cir. 1990).
             Furthermore, the notice of appeal was not filed within 60
       days of the entry of the April 10 and 15, 2023 post-judgment orders
       Wright challenges, and he did not file any timely tolling motions as
       to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (4)(A); 28 U.S.C.
       § 2107(b); Williams v. Bolger, 633 F.2d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1980). We
USCA11 Case: 23-12157     Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-12157                Order of the Court                        3

       conclude that the district court was not required to enter judgment
       as to the April 10 and 15, 2023 orders in a separate document be-
       cause the April 10 and 15 orders fall within Rule 58(a)’s exception
       to the separate document requirement for orders denying Fed. R.
       Civ. P. 52(b), 59, and 60 motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
             Finally, Wright’s June 15, 2023 notice of appeal is timely to
       appeal from the May 11, 16, and 25, and June 3, 2023 post judgment
       orders he challenges because his notice was filed within 60 days of
       the entry of those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C.
       § 2107(b). Thus, this appeal may proceed as to only those post-
       judgment orders.