Darrell Mark Babcock v. United States ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 23-11566   Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 06/22/2023   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 23-11566
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    DARRELL MARK BABCOCK,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    D.C. Docket Nos. 2:20-cv-14263-KAM,
    2:16-cr-14071-KAM-1
    USCA11 Case: 23-11566     Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 2 of 3
    2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11566
    ____________________
    Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
    tion. The statutory time limit required Darrell Babcock to file a
    notice of appeal from the denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion to
    vacate on or before December 30, 2022, which was 60 days after
    the district court denied his motion for reconsideration filed pursu-
    ant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2107
    (b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A), (c). However, Bab-
    cock did not file his motions for certificate of appealability, which
    may be construed as notices of appeal, until April 26, 2023, and May
    2, 2023, respectively.
    Additionally, there is no basis in the record for relief under
    Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6). Accord-
    ingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our ap-
    pellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 
    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 requirement, and we cannot
    entertain an appeal that is out of time). Finally, to the extent that
    Babcock challenges the district court’s May 2, 2023 order denying
    his motion for COA, an appeal from a district court’s denial of a
    COA is procedurally improper. See Pruitt v. United States, 
    274 F.3d 1315
    , 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that the procedurally proper
    USCA11 Case: 23-11566     Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 3 of 3
    23-11566               Opinion of the Court                        3
    course of action for a party denied a COA by the district court is to
    file a renewed application for a COA with us).
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-11566

Filed Date: 6/22/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/22/2023