Court Opinion

ID: 9941794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 22:00:50.746165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:03.636509
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10145    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10145
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       EDWIN SYLVAIN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60313-DPG-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10145      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10145

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely
       is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See United States
       v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that the
       time limit in Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is a non-jurisdictional claims-pro-
       cessing rule that we must enforce if raised by the government). Ed-
       win Sylvain’s pro se notice of appeal indicates that he appeals a De-
       cember 15, 2022 order denying him 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief,
       but review of the record reveals no such order entered on that date.
       We construe his notice of appeal as challenging only the district
       court’s August 16, 2022 paperless order denying his June 2022 mo-
       tion seeking 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief.
              However, his appeal is untimely as to that order. Because he
       timely moved for reconsideration of that order, the appeal deadline
       began to run when the district court denied his motion for recon-
       sideration on September 1, 2022, resulting in an appeal deadline of
       September 15, 2022. See United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412,
       1413-14 (11th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Although Syl-
       vain does not identify when he provided his notice of appeal to
       prison officials for mailing for purposes of the prison mailbox rule,
       it was apparently mailed after December 15, 2022, because it chal-
       lenges a purported order of that date, it bears a prison mail pro-
       cessing stamp of January 3, 2023, and the district court received it
       on January 9, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (requiring a declaration,
USCA11 Case: 23-10145     Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024   Page: 3 of 3

       23-10145              Opinion of the Court                       3

       notarized statement, or other evidence that a prisoner deposited in
       the prison mail system a notice of appeal by the filing deadline).
       The notice of appeal was thus at least three months late.
              We DENY as moot the government’s motion to stay the
       briefing schedule.