Rodney Keaton v. R. Munia, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13090
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
RODNEY KEATON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
DIRECTOR/POLICE CHIEF, et al.,
Defendants,
R. MUNIA,
Office #41776,
SERGEANT PASTOR,
#28581 [FNU],
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
USCA11 Case: 23-13090 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13090
CITY OF MIAMI POLICE CHIEF,
MORALES A. MANUEL,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-22859-DPG
____________________
Before WILSON , G RANT, and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
tion. The 30-day statutory time limit required Rodney Keaton to
file a notice of appeal from the district court’s August 18, 2023, final
judgment on or before September 18, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a);
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, Keaton did not file a notice
of appeal until September 19, 2023.
Further, there is no basis in the record for relief under Fed-
eral Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6) because Keaton
did not move to extend or reopen the appeal period or indicate in
his notice of appeal that he failed to receive formal notice of the
entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (providing that a
party may move to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal
USCA11 Case: 23-13090 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13090 Opinion of the Court 3
within 30 days of entry of final judgment); Sanders v. United States,
113 F.3d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that we will construe a
late pro se notice of appeal as a motion to reopen the appeal period
under Rule 4(a)(6) if the appellant indicates that he did not receive
notice of the entry of an order or judgment within 21 days of its
entry). Accordingly, 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).
No petition for rehearing 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: 23-13090 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --