supreme court and this court has repeatedly emphasized that the final judgment rule d and the collateral order doctrine are to be interpreted with the utmost strictness in caps in criminal cases this court should  dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and the only two questions that are presented by the government's motion and that are before the panel today are whether the district court's order is the final decision and if not whether this court should expand th narrow confines of the clatter order doctrine to cover rulings declining to consider motions to dismiss that are brought by defendants who refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the district court ms discussion concedes that the answer to  the st question is no and this court decided over sixty years ago that the answer to the nd question is also no i'm referring of course this court's decision in united states versus golden which we cited in our motion to dismiss under the indictment now if one were to substitute the country of france for thailand that is the exact circumstance present here and then cools in the district court denied the motion to dismiss holding the defendant may not without surrendering contrary the ever expanding list of cases where the supreme court and the court of appeals have refused to expand the collateral order doctrine in criminal cases following golding to cover denials and motions to dismiss confirm that that holding in gold is correct and should be followed here specifically i would point to the th circuit and the eleven circuits decision in modern row c n n show lou now we think goldman of course i sufficient to decide this appeal but were there any question on that those two cases extensively discussed the consider the final judgment rule and the collateral order doctrine came to the same conclusion goldman of appeals do not have jurisdiction to consider appeals from orders denying a motion to dismiss based on the fugitive disentanglement doctrine common are the criminal cases in which interlock atory appeals have been rejected and i think that's the basis of that student the fact that the supreme court in this court has recognized repeatedly the justification for an immediate appeal must therefore be sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal now i'm happy to go through the three elements of the collateral order test obviously the st is not the issue here because the united states agrees that the district court's order conclusively determine the disputed question but i think with respect to both the nd and the rd factors in criminal cases the supreme court this court other courts of appeals have all recognized that the elements of the issue requiring it to be an important issue completely separate from the merits requires that it be based on an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that the trial  occur that for instance is why the double jeopardy clause the speech and debate clause and then this court's decision in miers the protection against the separation of powers were found to satisfy the collateral order doctrine that is not the case for the decision here which is simply a decision that has been conned qualifies under the definition of the fugitive and then the district courts discretionary decision to hold to the client to decide to of the four bases supreme court has referred to the st would be minimizing appellate court interference with the numerous decisions the district courts make nd reducing the litigants opportunity to harass opponents and clog the court and rd promoting these fish should ministration justice and we certainly think those policies counsel against a finding that jurisdiction exists here number one it would be certainly inefficient for this court to spend time and energy deciding questions that may have seeks to clog the courts with requests for affirmative relief from the district court seeking the benefits of the court but not submitting herself to the burden of in a decision that goes against her excuse me one minute l my question is whether if i recall correctly this comet is not a fugitive in the sense that she has fled the united states is that right she's a fugitive in the sense that she's outside of the united states despite being prosecuted here and right it is correct that she did not flee in the sense that she was present in the united states and then left either so she says she's a fugitive from the united states the way i am a fugitive france because i left the year and a half ago after having seen that i'm a fugitive from france right no i think that's not correct and i would be asleep i would know that the merits of the discussion of whether a business to discuss is a fugitive is not the for this court on the motion to dismiss and the government hasn't had an opportunity to submit its brief on that but i will note that this court in two cases united states versus namely that a person can be said to be a fugitive when well abroad they learn they are under indictment and make no effort to return to the united states and to face charges i understand it's not before us but in those two cases where please the court my name is large de sol for the appellant muriel best scones the government's motion presents a single question does this court have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the district co admitted and unprecedented expansion of the fugitive decision title my doctor the answer is yes because all of the requirements of the collateral order doctrine are met as the government  there's no dispute that the lower court's order conclusively determine the disputed question but it is important to note that the disputed question that judge seibert resolved was whether the fugitive decision title meant doctrine applied to this is not a situation where this appeal is one seeking review of the denial of the motion to dismiss which is a statement that mr sanders made both today and numerous times during his brief and it's has to travel to the united states to appeal judge siver its ruling on her fugitive status the debate over her fugitive status a legit fugitive status would be moot so failing to review judge  merits of the case in both of those are met here application of the doctrine to foreign defendants who have not fled the jurisdiction and in fact in metta biscoe is case of course as judge fact pointed out she is a french citizen has lived her entire life in france has never fled anything the charges in the indictment occurred six years before the indictment and at no time respective to the issues of the case was met of a scald in the united states  it raises important issues of a defendant's right to access to the court to mount a defense and in this instance to challenge the whether the indictment violates the presumption of against extraterritoriality all without having to leave one's country and travel thousands of miles away to face your detention just for the right to challenge the indictment here the appeal is particularly important and the issues presented are particular important because judge seibert conceded she was quote expanding the nd circuit's fugitive d separate from the merits of the case is the balancing of prosecutorial power abroad with the sovereignty of foreign nations and of course here france for example did not see fit to prosecute finally the question of whether judge seibert erred regarding the future to distant title meant doctrine is indeed separate from the merits of this case consistent with the requirements of the collateral order doctrine simply put whether is a quote fugitive does not go to her guilt or innocence and as set forth in mitchell before cite the supreme court made it clear that the test is whether the issue sought to be appealed is quote conceptually different from the merits of the case here whether madam the scone is allegedly a fugitive does not go into the issues as to whether she in fact violated the commodity exchange act as alleged in the indictment indeed the fugitive doesn't title the doctrine precludes by definition decisions on the merits which further confirms the separateness and obviously the fact that there may be some overlap doesn't defeat the requirement of the collateral order doctrine as mitchell the source of the foresight made clear so we should miss that all three requirements of the collateral order doctrine are met and they're for should be permitted to pursue her appeal in this case the government argument and its briefer lies heavily on the golden case and let me just address that briefly because that case in fact is highly that is the case from sixty four years ago where the fugitive dissing title meant doctrine was neither discussed nor at issue it involved a case involving aid of a citizen who moved to thailand and renounce his citizenship in the motion to dismiss or a motion to dismiss there was no meaningful discussion in golden of the collateral order doctrine there is a two sentence reference to the quote offshoot rule of cohen it's unclear at all what rights the defendant was asserting how they were separate from the facts of the indictment in fact what the quote offshoot rule even meant so under these circumstances we contend that the golden case does not preclude in any sense reviewing this case and fact this is hardly on all fours as  lose case there distinguish on numerous grounds but i think the most important ground is the importance of the collateral order doctrine test in both of those cases the court held that the defendant did not have the quote right not to be labeled a fugitive and that was the essence of the discussion of the importance doctrine or the important standard here as we said the importance is very clear and that has to do with the right of a foreign non extraditable defendant without suffering the punishment of having to travel to the united states and leave everything behind to challenge an indictment have access to the courts to do show and those are clearly highly important rights under cohen too important to have forever unreviewable and i also want to point out that mr standers continues to assert that this case is not a right those cases where this case is one involving a right not to be subject to trial and that is true but that ignores the nd category of criminal cases where collateral order appeals are permitted and that are those where the issue would become moot if it had to wait for final review such a stack the boil and sell the united states so in those instances we think that the the nine the sister courts relied on are  at all are obviously not binding and not particularly persuasive so i'm going to give us the fans there's an opportunity for thirty seconds or for a minute by way of reply but i want i want to ask you a question if we agree with you what order or the crew do you want us to and in other words what is it that you want and what is it that you would proceed to do if if you program here and read the nie the government's motion well if you deny the government's motion we would have we would have our appeal on the merits heard separately and that would further proceedings on the motion to dismiss as to those issues that were not addressed because there are numerous issues that were not addressed by judge seibert but also on on the appeal on the merits of your honor's deny the government's motion cases and that follows directly from the supreme court's ruling apne so i would note that in answer the question about what they missed this con hopes this court will do the vast majority of her brief focused on two issues that this court would not