if true, were sufficient to state claims upon which relief could be granted as to Counts Three and Four and that the allegations were sufficient to defeat Morris’s entitlement to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the concerns raised and addressed by the Court in Iqbal are simply not present in or applicable to this case. Morris also misconstrues the effect of an appeal. As the Supreme Court aptly stated, “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982); see also Alice L. v. Dusek, 492 F.3d 563, 564 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The court is unaware- of any authority that
holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that because the standard of review for factual determinations on direct appeal is higher than the standard applied during an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction the interlocutory appeal normally will not establish law of the case on factual matters holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue