United States v. Jutaurio Clemons

── United States v. Jutaurio Clemons ── Case No.: 26-10163 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 06, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 26-10163 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10163 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUTAURIO PRESHAE CLEMONS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00400-VMC-AEP-1 ____________________ Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In May 2025, Jutaurio Clemons was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. Before sentencing, the district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture as to Clemons for a seized firearm USCA11 Case: 26-10163 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10163 and ammunition. After the court entered judgment, Clemons’s at- torney filed a notice of appeal, which generated Appeal No. 25- 11565. Neither that appeal nor appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Clemons in that appeal 1 has been re- solved, and both remain pending. Since then, the government notified the district court that the firearm was stolen and that it intended to return it to the right- ful owner. The district court then entered a final order of forfeiture for the seized ammunition. Clemons filed a pro se notice of appeal that, liberally con- strued, evinces an intent to appeal from the final judgment and all prior rulings, as well as the final order of forfeiture. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (providing that a notice of appeal must “designate the judgment—or the appealable order—from which the appeal is taken”), 3(c)(4) (providing, however, that “[t]he notice of appeal encompasses all orders that . . . merge into the designated judg- ment or appealable orders and “[i]t is not necessary to designate those orders”), 3(c)(7) (“An appeal must not be dismissed . . . for failure to properly designate the judgment if the notice of appeal was filed after entry of the judgment and designates an order that merged into that judgment.”); Carmichael v. United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining that pro se filings are liber- ally construed). The pro se filing was docketed separately and gen- erated the instant appeal. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). USCA11 Case: 26-10163 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026 Page: 3 of 4 26-10163 Opinion of the Court 3 Clemons, however, has already appealed from the district court’s judgment, which drew into question all preceding orders, including the preliminary order of forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985) (“In a criminal case[,] the final judgment [is] the sentence.”); Mickles on behalf of herself v. Country Club Inc., 887 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that an appeal from a final judgment brings up all prior non-final rulings that produced the judgment); United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that pre-