Jorge Luis Tapanes v. State of Florida

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-12439 MAY 30, 2012 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-21887-JAL JORGE LUIS TAPANES, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 30, 2012) Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jorge Luis Tapanes, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues: 1) whether the district court erred in failing to construe Tapanes’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; and 2) whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the district court should have transferred the petition, as construed, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where Tapanes’s federal criminal judgment was entered. Tapanes’s brief on appeal does not address either of these issues. As a result, we conclude that Tapanes has abandoned them. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal . . . are deemed abandoned.” (citations omitted)). As for those issues that Tapanes has briefed, we cannot address them. Our precedent makes it clear that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), our review is “limited to the issues specified in the COA order.” Hodges v. Att’y Gen., State of Fla., 506 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2007). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 2