Anthony Cooper v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

USCA11 Case: 25-13653 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13653 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANTHONY JEROME COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-00882-WWB-MCR ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13653 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13653 This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Anthony Cooper, pro se, appeals from the district court’s Au- gust 18, 2025 order and judgment denying his habeas corpus peti- tion. The statutory time limit required Cooper to file a notice of appeal on or before September 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, Cooper did not deliver the op- erative notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing until October 8, 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.

Nevertheless, upon review of the record below, the district court is DIRECTED to transmit to this Court Cooper’s filing titled “Petition for Certificate of Appealability,” docketed on September 19, 2025, as a notice of appeal from the district court’s final order.

We construe that filing, which Cooper gave to prison officials for mailing on September 15, 2025, as a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s final order and judgment. 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 the document (1) serves the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and (2) “spe- cifically indicate[s] the litigant’s intent to seek appellate review”); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (“If a document filed within the time specified by [Federal] Rule [of Appellate Proce- dure] 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.

USCA11 Case: 25-13653 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-13653 Opinion of the Court 3 All pending motions are DENIED as moot.