Torrie Austin v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-13829
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 22-13829 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2023 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13829 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TORRIE CHERMAINE AUSTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-14270-RLR ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-13829 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2023 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13829

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. We previously construed Mr. Austin’s October 2022 motion for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal from the dis- trict court’s July 29, 2022 final judgment and remanded to the dis- trict court for the limited purpose of determining whether the ap- peal period should be reopened under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). 1 The construed notice of appeal is untimely to challenge the final judgment, as it was filed after the statutory dead- line, and the district court declined to reopen the appeal period on limited remand. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(6), (c)(1); Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Daniels v. United States, 809 F.3d 588, 589 (11th Cir. 2015). Accord- ingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 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.

1 The original notice of appeal evinced an intent to appeal from the district court’s October 31, 2022 order denying Mr. Austin’s motion for a cer- tificate of appealability but an appeal from a district court’s denial of a certifi- cate of appealability is procedurally improper. See Pruitt v. United States, 274 F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1997).