USCA11 Case: 24-13679 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13679 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SHANTELL LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HERNAN CASTRO, individual and official capacity, SHEREA-ANN FERRER, individual and official capacity, CHRISTY C. COLLINS, individual and official capacity, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Child Support Services, USCA11 Case: 24-13679 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13679 Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cv-01608-PGB-RMN ____________________ Before BRANCH, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. On November 1, 2024, Shantell Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s October 28, 2024, order dismissing the case without prejudice. Lewis also filed a timely construed motion to reconsider that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). On November 5, 2024, the district court granted that mo- tion, vacated the order, and reopened the case for further proceed- ings.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the vacated October 28 order is “officially gone” and has “no legal effect what- ever.” See United States v. Sigma Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc). For that reason, even if we were to conclude that the district court erred in the October 28 order, we would be unable to give meaningful relief, and so this appeal is moot. See Friends of Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d USCA11 Case: 24-13679 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13679 Opinion of the Court 3 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). Additionally, Lewis’s November 1, 2024, notice of appeal is ineffective to appeal the district court’s No- vember 25, 2024, order of dismissal because that order did not exist at the time that Lewis filed the notice. See Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 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.