USCA11 Case: 25-10633    Document: 21-2      Date Filed: 04/04/2025   Page: 1 of 2




                                    In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 25-10633
                           ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       LATOSHA STRONG,


                                                   Defendant-Appellant.


                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00152-WFJ-SPF-1
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 25-10633      Document: 21-2     Date Filed: 04/04/2025     Page: 2 of 2




       2                       Order of the Court                  25-10633

       BY THE COURT:
               We issued a jurisdictional question about whether the mag-
       istrate judge’s February 3, 2025, order finding Latosha Strong in-
       competent and committing her to the custody of the Attorney
       General for hospitalization was an appealable order. In its re-
       sponse, the government argues that Strong’s appeal is untimely.
       Strong was required to file a notice of appeal by February 18 but
       did not file her notice until February 26. See Fed. R. App. P.
       4(b)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C), 26(a)(6)(A). Because the government raised
       the issue of timeliness, we must apply that time limit. See United
       States v. Lopez, 

 (11th Cir. 2009).
               However, Strong’s notice of appeal was filed within the
       30-day period during which an extension of time to file a notice of
       appeal would be permissible. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). We have
       customarily treated such untimely notices of appeal as motions for
       extensions under Rule 4(b)(4) and remanded to the district courts
       to determine whether those extensions were justified. See United
       States v. Ward, 

 (11th Cir. 1983).
              Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court for
       the limited purpose of determining whether an extension under
       Rule 4(b)(4) is justified. Upon making its determination, the district
       court shall return the case, as supplemented, to us for further pro-
       ceedings.