Raymond H. Pierson, III v. Bruce S. Rogow, et al.

This case advanced by a self-represented party against a' prominent Southeastern Appellate Attorney now pending for over seven years in the Federal Courts has followed a complex path of manifest injustice through the Federal District Courts of the Eastern District of California and South Florida as well as two prior successful appeals to the Eleventh Circuit Appellate Court before now arriving to this Court for review of an adverse ruling by the Eleventh Circuit to proceed with Dismissal of this Third Appeal despite the Court having accepted jurisdiction in the case at the time of docketing on September 19, 2019 of the Notice of Appeal (App. 240a) and maintaining that jurisdictional control for a fourteen month period with active Court participation as evidenced by the multiple rulings in the case through the completion of the entirety of briefing for all parties at which point a determination was made that the Notice of Appeal (App. 240a) had been untimely filed. I. Has a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it proceeds to deny the lawful relevance as occurred in this case of the resetting of the end date for the filing of the Notice of Appeal i _ as is required in the circumstances- of a I J misnamed but fully qualifying pro se filed I m j::0 I •k ,