Zachary Smith v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 25-11705
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11705 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-11705 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ZACHARY O. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-01032-SPC-KCD ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-11705 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11705

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Zachary O. Smith, pro se, appeals from the district court’s final order and February 10, 2025, judgment denying his habeas corpus petition. The 30-day statutory time limit required Smith to file a notice of appeal on or before March 12, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2010). However, Smith did not deliver the operative notice of appeal to prison authorities for mail- ing until April 15, which was too late to invoke our appellate juris- diction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Green, 606 F.3d at 1300-01. Nevertheless, upon review of the record below, the district court is DIRECTED to transmit to this Court Smith’s filing titled “Petition for Permission to Appeal,” docketed on March 14, 2025, as a “Motion for Certificate of Appealability,” as a notice of appeal from the district court’s final order and judgment. We construe that filing as a timely notice of appeal. See Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278-80 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a document may be construed as a notice of appeal when (1) the document serves the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and (2) the document “specifically indicate[s] the litigant’s intent to seek appel- late review”); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (“If a doc- ument filed within the time specified by [Federal] Rule [of Appel- late Procedure] 4 gives the notice required by Rule 3, it is effective USCA11 Case: 25-11705 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-11705 Opinion of the Court 3

as a notice of appeal.”). Upon receiving that construed notice of appeal from the district court, the Clerk shall open a new appeal.