effluent limitations, but only two are at issue in this action — Outlets 006 and 043. Permit Modification Req. Docs., ECF 13-5 at 4. Outlet 006 discharges into Laurel Branch of Paint Creek, and Outlet 043 discharges to a different Laurel Branch, of Armstrong Creek. Def.s’ Mem. Supp. of Cross-Mot. Summ. J., ECF 63 at 6. 6 . Maple moved to suspend the briefing schedule in this appeal action in light of the pending Fayette County enforcement action filed by the WVDEP. ECF 68-2. The motion was granted. Pis.’ Reply Supp. of Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF 68 at 22. 7 . Given the duplication of the motions, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ first motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 7). 8 . Compare Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, M.D.'s, P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). See also Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219
recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred