United States v. Christopher Whitman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2026
• Docket: 25-11325
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11325 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11325 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, versus

CHRISTOPHER WHITMAN, Defendant-Appellant, REBECCA V WHITMAN, et al., Defendants-Counter Claimant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00057-LAG ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11325 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11325

Christopher Whitman appeals the district court’s order (1) denying his second motion for summary judgment as untimely, (2) granting summary judgment for the government, (3) reducing to judgment the tax assessments against him, and (4) foreclosing the federal tax liens the government holds on his properties. No- tably, in a subsequent order, the court further ordered that the gov- ernment “may seek to enforce its federal tax liens by moving for a judicial sale of the Subject Properties.” On appeal, Whitman ar- gues that the district court failed to apply the correct summary judgment standard and abused its discretion in denying “reconsid- eration” without addressing “manifest errors” he had identified. In response, the government argues that this appeal should be dis- missed for lack of jurisdiction. We generally only have jurisdiction over the final decisions of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Gar- den City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (“To be appealable, an order must be either final or fall into a specific class of interloc- utory orders that are made appealable by statute or jurisprudential exception.”). An order is a final decision if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. CSX Transp., Inc., 235 F.3d at 1327. In the context of foreclosure cases, an order that contem- plates a judicial sale is not necessarily final. Citibank, N. A. v. Data USCA11 Case: 25-11325 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-11325 Opinion of the Court 3

Lease Fin. Corp., 645 F.2d 333, 337 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981). 1 For example, where there is no order of sale, the proceedings are not final because further judicial action is required before a court’s min- isterial officers can execute any initial decree that resolved the right to a sale. See Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Simmons, 123 U.S. 52, 54-56 (1887) (explaining that, although the right to a sale of the property had been settled by the court below, the initial determi- nation did not end the foreclosure proceeding because the sale re- quired further judicial action; specifically, the court had to enter an order of sale setting the terms of redemption); Citibank, 645 F.2d at 337 (explaining that an order that directs the immediate sale of specified property is final, whereas an order that determines a party’s right to a judicial sale, but does not determine the amount of the debt or actually order the sale, is not); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2001 (providing that a federal court order authorizing judicial sale of realty must specify the terms and conditions of the sale, as deter- mined by the court). We lack jurisdiction over Whitman’s appeal because the dis- trict court has not yet entered an order of sale foreclosing the tax liens against the subject properties and directing the terms of the foreclosure sale, such that there is no final or immediately appeal- able order.

1 In Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982), this Circuit

adopted as binding precedent decisions issued by Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit after September 30, 1981. USCA11 Case: 25-11325 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-11325

APPEAL DISMISSED.