Jorge Luis Tapanes v. State of Florida

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 30, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12439
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-21887-JAL
JORGE LUIS TAPANES,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 30, 2012)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Luis Tapanes, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal

-- 1 of 2 --

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We granted a certificate of
appealability (COA) on two issues: 1) whether the district court erred in failing to
construe Tapanes’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; and
2) whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the district court should have transferred
the petition, as construed, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, where Tapanes’s federal criminal judgment was entered.
Tapanes’s brief on appeal does not address either of these issues. As a
result, we conclude that Tapanes has abandoned them. See Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants
liberally, issues not briefed on appeal . . . are deemed abandoned.” (citations
omitted)). As for those issues that Tapanes has briefed, we cannot address them.
Our precedent makes it clear that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), our review is
“limited to the issues specified in the COA order.” Hodges v. Att’y Gen., State of
Fla., 506 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2007). The judgment of the district court is
therefore
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --