Fednert Orisnord v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13251
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
FEDNERT ORISNORD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv-60996-WPD
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13251 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13251
Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Fednert Orisnord,
pro se, appeals the district court’s dismis-
sal for lack of jurisdiction of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to cor-
rect. Rather than addressing the district court’s decision, Orisnord
makes the same arguments that he made below, which the court
did not address. We affirm.
We review
de novo the district court’s dismissal of a motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence as “second or successive.”
McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002). Un-
der Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.
While we liberally construe
pro se briefs, issues not briefed on ap-
peal by a
pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.
Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, liberally construing his brief, Orisnord has abandoned
any challenge to the district court’s order dismissing his motion for
lack of jurisdiction by not presenting any arguments about that or-
der. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-13251 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --