Elizabeth Korcz v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 25, 2023
• Docket: 23-12325
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-12325 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 09/25/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12325 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ELIZABETH KORCZ, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-08002-RDP ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-12325 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 09/25/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12325

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. The 60-day statutory time limit required Elizabeth Korcz to file a notice of appeal from the district court’s April 18, 2023 mem- orandum opinion and separate order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate on or before June 20, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 26(a)(1)(C). However, Korcz did not file her notice of appeal until July 11, 2023. Further, the district court entered its final order in a docu- ment separate and apart from its accompanying memorandum opinion, so the time to appeal began to run that day—April 18, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) (providing that every judgment must generally “be set out in a separate document”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7) (stating that when a separate document is required, a judg- ment or order is deemed entered for timeliness purposes when it is set forth on a separate document or 150 days have passed from en- try of the judgment or order in the civil docket, whichever is ear- lier); State Nat’l Bank of El Paso v. United States, 488 F.2d 890, 892-93 (5th Cir. 1974); Weinberger v. United States, 559 F.2d 401, 402 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1977); Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 937 F.2d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Ad- min., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). USCA11 Case: 23-12325 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 09/25/2023 Page: 3 of 3

23-12325 Opinion of the Court 3

All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 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.