USCA11 Case: 25-11260 Document: 34-2 Date Filed: 10/28/2025 Page: 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11260 ____________________ RICHARD KANANEN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-01936-PGB-DAB ____________________ Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT: This appeal is DISMISSED in part, sua sponte, for lack of ju- risdiction. Richard Kananen, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s: December 6, 2022 judgment dismissing his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus; and March 21, 2025 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

USCA11 Case: 25-11260 Document: 34-2 Date Filed: 10/28/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Order of the Court 25-11260 Kananen’s notice of appeal, deemed filed under the prison mailbox rule on April 9, 2025, is untimely to challenge the Decem- ber 6, 2022 judgment. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-02 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered if there is not a federal party), 4(c)(1) (providing that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date that he delivered it to prison au- thorities for mailing). Additionally, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) mo- tion, deemed filed under the prison mailbox rule on March 10, 2025, did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978) (holding that an appeal from the denial of an untimely motion for reconsideration does not bring up for review the underlying judg- ment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), 4(c)(1).

Kananen’s notice of appeal, however, is timely to challenge the district court’s March 21, 2025 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. This appeal shall proceed only as to that order.

No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it com- plies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.