USCA11 Case: 20-10299 Date Filed: 03/03/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10299
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00215-TFM-C-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CODY DEAN HAGLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(March 3, 2021)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-10299 Date Filed: 03/03/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Cody Hagler, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to vacate his supervised release revocation for lack of jurisdiction and for
being in violation of the district court’s local rules. He argues on appeal that the
district court erred in its denial because the sentence was unconstitutional, the
prosecutor made false statements to the court at the supervised release hearing, and
his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the false statements made by the
prosecutor.
Whether a district court has jurisdiction is a question of law subject to plenary
review. United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
The filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and
divests the district court of its control over the aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.” United States v. Diveroli, 729 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 2013). “When
an appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction to take any action with
regard to the matter except in aid of the appeal.” Id. (internal quotation mark
omitted).
The local rules for the Southern District of Alabama provide that all persons
proceeding pro se must comply with the local rules and that an attorney representing
a party must sign all filings made on that party’s behalf. See S.D. Ala. Gen. L.R. 83.5
(pro se compliance); and S.D. Ala. Gen. L.R. 5(a)(3) (“For filings by represented
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10299 Date Filed: 03/03/2021 Page: 3 of 3
parties, at least one attorney appearing in the action shall sign each document
filed.”).
Here, the district court did not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction
because the direct appeal of Hagler’s revocation judgment was pending at the time
of his filing. Moreover, given that Hagler was represented at the time, the district
court properly denied his pro se motion under its local rules. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3