USA v. Tommy Findley

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11133
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TOMMY R. FINDLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80226-RLR-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11133 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 02/16/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11133
Before R OSENBAUM, L UCK , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
jurisdictional question, we conclude that this appeal is untimely.
Tommy Findley, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal on
March 31, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States,
748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). Although unclear, it appears
that Findley is challenging his underlying criminal conviction.
However, his notice of appeal is untimely to challenge his convic-
tion and any other district court orders, as it was filed more than 14
days after the last order the district court entered prior to the filing
of the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).
And because the government has objected to Findley’s un-
timely appeal, we must apply the time limits of Federal Rule of Ap-
pellate Procedure 4(b). See United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309,
1313-14 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that we must apply Rule 4(b)’s
14-day time limit when the government objects to an untimely no-
tice of appeal). Additionally, because Findley filed his notice of ap-
peal more than 30 days after the expiration of the 14-day appeal
period for any of the district court’s orders, he is not eligible for
relief under Rule 4(b)(4). See Fed. R. App P. 4(b)(4) (providing that,
upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court
may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for up to 30 days);
United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1983) (not-
ing that we customarily treat a late notice of appeal, filed within
USCA11 Case: 23-11133 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 02/16/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-11133 Opinion of the Court 3
the 30 days during which an extension is permissible, as a motion
for extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4) and remand to the district
court). Further, to the extent that Findley is challenging his judg-
ment of conviction, the appeal is duplicative, and, thus, not
properly before us, as he has already appealed the judgment. See
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) (not-
ing 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 administrative power to dismiss duplicative
litigation to avoid wasting judicial resources).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
USCA11 Case: 23-11133 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 02/16/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --