Prince Toburas Jermaine Rolle v. USA, No. 23-12557 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-12557 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2023 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12557 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ PRINCE TOBURAS JERMAINE ROLLE, 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 Nos. 6:21-cv-00473-GAP-RMN, 6:09-cr-103-GAP-GJK-1 USCA11 Case: 23-12557 2 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 2 23-12557 ____________________ Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Prince Rolle appeals the district court’s May 4, 2023, judgment denying his counseled 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion. Despite being represented by counsel, Rolle filed the notice of appeal pro se, and he signed and dated it July 21, 2023. The statutory time limit required him to file the notice on or before July 3, 2023, 60 days after the district court’s judgment was entered. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The notice of appeal, deemed filed on July 21, 2023, is therefore untimely, and we lack jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014); Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). Additionally, Rolle is not entitled to relief under Rule Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Although Rolle alleges that he did not personally receive notice of the court’s judgment, the clerk was required to serve notice on his attorney, and there is no indication that his counsel did not receive notice. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d), 5(b). 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
