Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States v. Steven Kelly

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-13153
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13153 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-13153
Non-Argument Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

STEVEN JAMES KELLY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cr-80092-RLR-1

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In 2025, Steven James Kelly, proceeding pro se, filed a docu-
ment titled “Formal Appeal for; 18-USC-871(a) (DE 56)” in his crim-
USCA11 Case: 25-13153 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13153

inal case in which the district court had adjudicated him incompe-
tent and dismissed the indictment in 2022. In his filing, which the
district court docketed as a notice of appeal, Kelly did not identify
any rulings from which he was appealing.
We issued a jurisdictional question asking the parties to
identify which order the notice of appeal evinces an intent to appeal
from. In its response, the government moves to dismiss the appeal
as untimely to appeal from any district court order. Kelly did not
respond.
If Kelly sought to appeal from the district court’s most recent
order, which was entered on October 16, 2024, the deadline to file
the notice of appeal was October 30, 2024. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i) (providing that, in criminal cases, a defendant must file
a notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of the order or
judgment being appealed). Under the prison mailbox rule, the ear-
liest that Kelly’s notice could be deemed filed is September 1, 2025,
the date that he certified that he had provided it to prison officials
for mailing. 1 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (describing the prison mail-
box rule); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (explaining that,

1 It is unclear when Kelly’s notice is deemed filed under the prison mailbox

rule because he certified that he had provided it to prison officials for mailing
on September 1, 2025, and the envelope in which it was mailed is stamped as
received by prison officials for mailing on September 2, 2025. The one-day
difference, however, is not dispositive, as Kelly’s notice is untimely to appeal
any of the district court’s orders when deemed filed on either date.
USCA11 Case: 25-13153 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-13153 Opinion of the Court 3

under the rule, a notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date that
the prisoner delivered it to prison authorities).
The notice is thus untimely to appeal from the October 16,
2024, order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The notice is also
deemed filed more than 30 days after the October 30 deadline, so
Kelly is not eligible for an extension of time. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(4) (providing that district courts can “extend the time to file
a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expi-
ration of the time otherwise prescribed by . . . Rule 4(b)”); United
States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009). As his notice
of appeal is not timely to appeal from the court’s most recent order,
Kelly’s notice is also not timely to appeal from any earlier order.
Accordingly, because the government raised the issue of
timeliness, we must apply Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i) and dismiss this appeal
as untimely. See Lopez, 562 F.3d at 1314. The motion to dismiss is
GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.