Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10727 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10727 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ WARREN FAMBRO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BALDWIN SP WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-03936-SEG ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Warren Fambro, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s January 23, 2026, final judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Fambro did USCA11 Case: 26-10727 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10727 not date his notice of appeal, and he did not include a declaration or notarized statement as to the date he gave it to prison officials for mailing. Additionally, the envelope in which Fambro mailed the notice was not postmarked. On appeal, a jurisdictional question asked the parties to ad- dress whether Fambro’s notice of appeal is timely as to the Janu- ary 23, 2026, judgment. Neither party responded. Upon review of the record, we conclude that Fambro’s no- tice of appeal—deemed filed upon receipt on March 3, 2026, given that there is no evidence establishing when he delivered the notice to prison authorities for mailing—is untimely to appeal from the January 23, 2026, judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered if there is not a federal party); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (explaining the prison mailbox rule); Daniels v. United States, 809 F.3d 588, 589-90 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “strict compliance” is required for a prisoner to take advantage of the prison mailbox rule); Haney v. Mizell Mem’l Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1472 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that, in gen- eral, a notice of appeal that is mailed to a court is deemed filed on the date that it is received by that court). We therefore lack juris- diction over this appeal. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.