Jutaurio Clemons was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in the Middle District of Florida. Before his sentencing, the district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture regarding a seized firearm and ammunition. Clemons's attorney then filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment, generating Appeal No. 25-11565. That appeal, along with a motion by appointed counsel to withdraw, remained pending. Subsequently, the government notified the court that the firearm was stolen and intended to return it to the rightful owner. The district court then entered a final order of forfeiture specifically regarding the seized ammunition. Clemons, proceeding pro se, filed a new notice of appeal that the court interpreted as challenging both the final judgment and the new final order of forfeiture.
The court addressed two primary legal barriers to Clemons's appeal. First, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and established Eleventh Circuit precedent, an appeal from a final judgment brings up all prior non-final rulings that produced that judgment. The court cited United States v. Curry and Mickles v. Country Club Inc. to explain that the preliminary forfeiture order merged into the final judgment. Consequently, Clemons was not entitled to file a second, duplicative appeal regarding the same judgment or the orders that preceded it. Second, the court addressed Clemons's standing to appeal the post-judgment final order of forfeiture. Citing Christian Coalition of Fla. Inc. v. United States and Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, the court noted that Article III requires litigants to have standing to appeal. Because the preliminary order of forfeiture had already extinguished Clemons's interest in the property, he lacked a concrete stake in the post-judgment order and therefore lacked standing to challenge it.
The appeal is dismissed in its entirety. Clemons cannot pursue a separate appeal on the forfeiture issues because they are already covered by his pending Appeal No. 25-11565. Additionally, any pending motions in this specific appeal, including motions to withdraw counsel, are denied as moot. The original appeal remains the sole vehicle for addressing these issues.