United States v. Latosha Strong

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 2025
Docket25-10633
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Latosha Strong (United States v. Latosha Strong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Latosha Strong, (11th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-10633 Document: 21-2 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10633 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LATOSHA STRONG,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00152-WFJ-SPF-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-10633 Document: 21-2 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Order of the Court 25-10633

BY THE COURT: We issued a jurisdictional question about whether the mag- istrate judge’s February 3, 2025, order finding Latosha Strong in- competent and committing her to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization was an appealable order. In its re- sponse, the government argues that Strong’s appeal is untimely. Strong was required to file a notice of appeal by February 18 but did not file her notice until February 26. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C), 26(a)(6)(A). Because the government raised the issue of timeliness, we must apply that time limit. See United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009). However, Strong’s notice of appeal was filed within the 30-day period during which an extension of time to file a notice of appeal would be permissible. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). We have customarily treated such untimely notices of appeal as motions for extensions under Rule 4(b)(4) and remanded to the district courts to determine whether those extensions were justified. See United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether an extension under Rule 4(b)(4) is justified. Upon making its determination, the district court shall return the case, as supplemented, to us for further pro- ceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Lopez
562 F.3d 1309 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Latosha Strong, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-latosha-strong-ca11-2025.