Case Information
*2 Before B RANCH , L AGOA , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nyasha Fisher appeals from the district court’s July 24, 2024, order remanding the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A jurisdictional question asked whether the remand order is reviewable. Fisher responds that the order is appealable.
We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal be- cause the remand order is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The district court concluded that remand was necessary because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and we may not review that con- clusion even if it is erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc. , 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997); Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr. , 547 U.S. 633, 642 (2006). The remand order is not otherwise reviewable because the district court did not remand based on a procedural defect without waiting for a party’s motion, and Fisher did not remove the case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443. See Corp. Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc. , 561 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2009); Overlook Gardens Props., LLC v. ORIX USA, L.P. , 927 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2019); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 593
U.S. 230, 238 (2021).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.