Karl Bernard BELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee, 470 F. App'x 858

PER CURIAM: On November 18, 2011, we issued an opinion holding that the district court should have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Karl Bernard Bell’s pro se motion to vacate his sentence, and we remanded for that purpose. United States v. Bell, 447 Fed.Appx. 116, 118 (11th Cir.2011) (unpublished). Before our mandate issued on January 10, 2012, the district court entered an order dismissing the case. That order is the subject of this appeal, and the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter it. See Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med.

Ctr., 906 F.2d 645, 649 (11th Cir.1990) (“[A] district court ... is without jurisdiction to rule in a case that is on appeal, despite a decision by this court, until the mandate has issued.”). The district court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED. If the district court’s view of the matter has not changed in the interim, it may reenter its order after the mandate issues for this decision.