USCA11 Case: 25-12968 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/14/2025 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12968 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MARCUS WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cv-00544-ACC-NWH ____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marcus White, pro se, appeals from the district court’s final judgment denying his habeas corpus petition, which was entered on June 17, 2025. The 30-day statutory time limit required White USCA11 Case: 25-12968 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/14/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12968

to file a notice of appeal on or before July 17, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2010). However, White did not give the filing construed as his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing until August 21, 2025, which was too late to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Green, 606 F.3d at 1300-01. Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Nevertheless, the record reveals that White filed another document that is properly construed as a timely notice of appeal. The district court is DIRECTED to transmit to this Court White’s “Petition for Certificate of Appealability,” which was docketed on July 16, 2025, as a motion for certificate of appealability, as a notice of appeal from the district court’s final order and judgment. We construe that filing, in which White expressed his intent to appeal the judgment, as a timely notice of appeal. See Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278-80 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a document may be construed as a notice of appeal when (1) the document serves the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and (2) the document “specifically indicate[s] the litigant’s intent to seek appel- late review”); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (“If a doc- ument filed within the time specified by [Federal] Rule [of Appel- late Procedure] 4 gives the notice required by Rule 3, it is effective as a notice of appeal.”). Upon receiving that construed notice of appeal from the district court, the Clerk shall open a new appeal.