William Wright, Jr. v. USA

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12157
____________________
WILLIAM HAROLD WRIGHT, JR.,
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. 8:21-cv-02691-KKM-SPF
____________________
Before BRASHER and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 23-12157 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Order of the Court 23-12157
BY THE COURT:
Upon review of the record and the responses to the jurisdic-
tional question, this appeal is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of ju-
risdiction as untimely. William Wright filed a notice of appeal,
deemed filed on June 15, 2023, challenging the final order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, interlocutory orders that merged into
that final judgment, and multiple post-judgment orders.
Wright’s June 15, 2023 notice of appeal is not timely to ap-
peal from the February 15, 2023 final order and judgment or the
interlocutory orders that merged into that judgment because it was
not filed within 60 days of entry of that judgment. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). Only one of Wright’s post-judg-
ment filings could serve as a timely tolling motion filed within 28
days of the entry of judgment, but that March 14, 2023 filing was
denied on March 22, 2023, more than 60 days before Wright filed
his June 15 notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 4(A);
28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). Wright’s subsequent filings could not toll the
time to appeal from the final order and judgment for a second time.
See Wansor v. George Hantscho Co., 570 F.2d 1202, 1206 & n.5 (5th
Cir. 1978); Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th
Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the notice of appeal was not filed within 60
days of the entry of the April 10 and 15, 2023 post-judgment orders
Wright challenges, and he did not file any timely tolling motions as
to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (4)(A); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107(b); Williams v. Bolger, 633 F.2d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1980). We
USCA11 Case: 23-12157 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12157 Order of the Court 3
conclude that the district court was not required to enter judgment
as to the April 10 and 15, 2023 orders in a separate document be-
cause the April 10 and 15 orders fall within Rule 58(a)’s exception
to the separate document requirement for orders denying Fed. R.
Civ. P. 52(b), 59, and 60 motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
Finally, Wright’s June 15, 2023 notice of appeal is timely to
appeal from the May 11, 16, and 25, and June 3, 2023 post judgment
orders he challenges because his notice was filed within 60 days of
the entry of those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107(b). Thus, this appeal may proceed as to only those post-
judgment orders.
USCA11 Case: 23-12157 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --