USA v. Ednecdia Johnson, No. 18-11991 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11991 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11991 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cr-00143-ODE-AJB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDNECDIA (TINA) JOHNSON, a.k.a. Tina Smith, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (February 7, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The government has filed a motion to dismiss Johnson’s appeal, arguing that we lack jurisdiction to consider it because (1) her time to appeal the restitution amount has long since passed and (2) her appeal is precluded by the limited appeal Case: 18-11991 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 2 of 3 waiver in her plea agreement. However, the failure to file a timely notice of appeal does not deprive us of jurisdiction. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009). In any event, Johnson timely appealed from the district court’s 2018 order denying her pro se motion to adjust her restitution. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless, in her brief on appeal, Johnson largely raises issues challenging the district court’s initial award of restitution in 2004, not the district court’s order denying her pro se motion in 2018, and so her arguments challenging the 2018 order have been abandoned. United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). As for the arguments that she does raise on appeal, which focus on the district court’s 2004 award of restitution, we are required to dismiss them as untimely pursuant to the government’s request. Lopez, 562 F.3d at 1312-14. To the extent that Johnson’s arguments on appeal can be construed to challenge the district court’s denial of her pro se motion, we dismiss Johnson’s appeal pursuant to her valid appeal waiver.1 We have held that a valid appeal waiver may bar a challenge to restitution, United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1 Contrary to the government’s assertions, a valid appeal waiver does not deprive us of jurisdiction but does require that we dismiss an appeal prior to reaching its merits. See, e.g., United States v. Howles, 166 F.3d 1166, 1169 (11th Cir. 1999) (declining to reach the merits of an appeal due to a valid appeal waiver). 2 Case: 18-11991 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 3 of 3 1064, 1068 (11th Cir. 2008), and we have also previously determined that Johnson’s appeal waiver is valid and enforceable, making it the law of the case, In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Johnson’s limited appeal waiver does not contain an exception relevant to her appeal. We therefore enforce Johnson’s limited appeal waiver with regard to any timely issues raised by Johnson. Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal in part as untimely and in part pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 3
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.
