Luis Lopez v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10915
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LUIS ANGEL LOPEZ,
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 No. 8:20-cv-01592-SDM-AEP
____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-10915 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10915
Before R OSENBAUM , NEWSOM , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Lopez, pro se, appeals the denial of a certificate of ap-
pealability (“COA”) in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action. He previously,
through counsel, appealed the § 2255 judgment and we denied a
COA in appeal no. 23-13259.
To the extent that Lopez is again challenging the district
court’s denial of his § 2255 motion and a COA, the appeal is un-
timely. He had until November 10, 2023—60 days after the district
court’s September 11, entry of final judgment—to challenge the fi-
nal order and judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(B). However, he did not file his pro se notice of appeal until
March 8, 2024. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and
cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Ad-
min., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional require-
ment, and we cannot entertain an appeal that is out of time).
Additionally, a new challenge to the final order and judg-
ment would be duplicative of appeal no. 23-13259, and therefore,
not properly before us. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord,
449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) (providing that a party “must ordinarily
raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment
on the merits”); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d
1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that we have inherent admin-
istrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation to avoid wasting
USCA11 Case: 24-10915 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

24-10915 Opinion of the Court 3
judicial resources). Further, any challenge to the district court’s or
our denial of a COA is procedurally improper. See Pruitt v. United
States, 274 F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that the proce-
durally proper course of action for a party denied a COA by the
district court is to file a renewed application for a COA with us);
11th Cir. 27-2 (providing that a party seeking to challenge our de-
nial of a COA may file a motion for reconsideration with us within
21 days of the order’s entry).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. No
petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the tim-
ing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other appli-
cable rules.
USCA11 Case: 24-10915 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --