USCA11 Case: 21-13251 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13251 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

FEDNERT ORISNORD, 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 No. 0:16-cv-60996-WPD ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13251 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13251

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Fednert Orisnord, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismis- sal for lack of jurisdiction of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to cor- rect. Rather than addressing the district court’s decision, Orisnord makes the same arguments that he made below, which the court did not address. We affirm. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence as “second or successive.” McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002). Un- der Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. While we liberally construe pro se briefs, issues not briefed on ap- peal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, liberally construing his brief, Orisnord has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s order dismissing his motion for lack of jurisdiction by not presenting any arguments about that or- der. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.