United States v. Darryl Daggett

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-13099
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-13099 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13099 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRYL KENNEDY DAGGETT,

Defendant- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00146-JRH-BKE-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13099 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13099

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Darryl Daggett appeals from his June 29, 2020, conviction and sentence. The government moves to dismiss this appeal as un- timely and barred by an appeal waiver. We GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss and DISMISS this appeal as untimely. See United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that timeliness in a criminal case is not jurisdictional but must be enforced if the government raises it). Daggett had until July 13, 2020, to file a notice of appeal, but his notice is deemed filed on July 13, 2023, under the prison mailbox rule, so it is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). Daggett is not entitled to relief under Rule 4(b)(4) because he filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the appeal period ex- pired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). And his contention that his coun- sel did not file a notice of appeal as directed is not a basis for deem- ing this appeal timely. See id.; United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that if a district court con- cludes that an out-of-time appeal from a criminal judgment is the proper remedy in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, it should vacate the judgment and re-impose the sentence, creating a new appeal pe- riod). Because we dismiss this appeal on timeliness grounds, we do not address the merits of the government’s argument regarding the appeal waiver. USCA11 Case: 23-13099 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2025 Page: 3 of 3

23-13099 Opinion of the Court 3

All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.