denied relief on two claims but dismissed claims l(a, b, d, e) with leave for Gosney to amend. However, as noted above, the court did not give Gosney a time certain in which to amend claims l(a, b, d, e), and the court has not issued a final ruling on these claims. Gosney’s two-year period in which to file his rule 3.850 motion does not expire until December 8, 2011; thus he may still file a timely amendment to these claims. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Of course, Gosney may not be aware that he can still amend claims l(a, b, d, e) in the postconviction court because the March 31, 2010, order informed Gosney he had thirty days to appeal. This information was erroneous because the order was not a final, appealable order. See Lawrence v. State, 987 So.2d 157, 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). In the May 7, 2010, order the court dismissed
holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 holding that orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring disclosure are immediately appealable as collateral orders holding that orders that deny some rule 3850 claims but dismiss others with leave to amend under spera are not final appealable orders recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders