USCA11 Case: 25-10880 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10880 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TROY MARKEITH GRIFFIN, 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 No. 8:24-cv-00982-MSS-AEP ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-10880 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10880

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Troy Griffin appeals from the district court’s March 5, 2025, order denying three motions Griffin filed in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. Those motions repeated claims in Griffin’s § 2255 motion and sought an emergency ruling on the § 2255 mo- tion.

The March 5 order is not final and appealable because it did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that an appealable final order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). The district court has not issued any final decision on the merits, and Griffin’s § 2255 motion remains pending. See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the district court’s order effectively unre- viewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it USCA11 Case: 25-10880 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-10880 Opinion of the Court 3 complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.