James Arthur Van Meerten v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10016
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JAMES ARTHUR VAN MEERTEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket NoS. 6:18-cv-02099-CEM-DCI,
6:17-cr-00198-CEM-DCI-1
USCA11 Case: 24-10016 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10016
____________________
Before W ILSON , R OSENBAUM, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
tion. James Van Meerten, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
peals from a “final judgment entered [by the district court] on Oc-
tober 18, 2023.” No such judgment exists in this case. The final
judgment disposing of Van Meerten’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was
entered on August 26, 2021. Van Meerten timely appealed that
judgment and, in appeal number 21-13205, we denied a certificate
of appealability. There was not any activity in this § 2255 action
after the appeal concluded and before Van Meerten filed the instant
appeal.
To the extent Van Meerten again seeks to appeal the § 2255
judgment, his appeal is duplicative and untimely. We may use our
inherent administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation in
order to avoid wasting judicial resources. Colo. River Water Conser-
vation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817–18 (1976); accord I.A.
Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir.
1986). Another appeal of the § 2255 judgment would be duplica-
tive. See United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978)1
1 We are bound by decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit issued before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 24-10016 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

24-10016 Opinion of the Court 3
(noting that an appellant is not generally entitled to two appeals
from the same judgment).
Further, the 60-day statutory time limit required Van
Meerten to file a notice of appeal from the August 26, 2021 judg-
ment on or before October 25, 2021. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, Van Meerten did not file this notice
of appeal until January 2, 2024. Accordingly, even if it was not du-
plicative, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our
appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,
138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017).
To the extent Van Meerten intends to appeal the district
court’s October 18, 2023 order denying, in his separate criminal
case, his motion to alter or amend the § 2255 judgment, there is a
pending appeal from that order. Indeed, Van Meerten listed that
appeal number—23-13774—on the instant notice of appeal.
All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for re-
hearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other
requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.
USCA11 Case: 24-10016 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --