Court Opinion

ID: 9943576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 21:00:59.494938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:38.728524
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10033     Document: 11-1     Date Filed: 02/23/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 24-10033
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       TODD STEPHENS,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant,

       PNC MORTGAGE,
       a division of PNC Bank National Association, et al.,

                                                              Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 24-10033     Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                24-10033

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:23-cv-80043-AHS
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Todd Stephens, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
       court’s final judgment in favor of the United States and our dismis-
       sal of his previous appeal, which also was from that judgment, for
       failure to pay the filing fee.
               The 60-day statutory time limit required Stephens to file a
       notice of appeal from the district court’s October 13, 2023 final
       judgment on or before December 12, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b);
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, Stephens did not file the in-
       stant notice of appeal until January 2, 2024. Further, there is no
       basis in the record for relief under Federal Rules of Appellate Pro-
       cedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6) because Stephens did not move to extend
       or reopen the appeal period or indicate in his notice of appeal that
       he failed to receive formal notice of the entry of judgment. See Fed.
       R. App. P. 4(a)(5)-(6). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely
       and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neigh-
       borhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017).
USCA11 Case: 24-10033     Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       24-10033               Opinion of the Court                        3

               Additionally, Stephens cannot challenge our dismissal of his
       previous appeal via a notice of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1). He
       filed a motion to reinstate that appeal but did not submit the filing
       fee with his motion. See 11th Cir. Rule 42-1(b), 42-2(c).
              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.