Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-07066/USCOURTS-ca10-07-07066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Don Mass
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL DON MASS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 07-7066 & 07-7072 

(D.C. No. 1:07-CR-26-RAW)

ORDER

Filed October 25, 2007

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to dismiss the

captioned appeals. We agree with the government that this court lacks jurisdiction

over these interlocutory appeals, and, accordingly, grant the motion.

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to appoint an economist to

refute the amount of loss set forth in the presentence report, as well as the district

court’s denial of his motion to stay the matter pending disposition of the

interlocutory appeal.

Generally, the final judgment rule prohibits appellate review in a criminal case

until after conviction and imposition of sentence. Flanagan v. United States, 465

Appellate Case: 07-7066 Document: 010157572 Date Filed: 10/25/2007 Page: 1
-2-

U.S. 259, 263 (1984). “The rule of finality has particular force in criminal

prosecutions because encouragement of delay is fatal to the vindication of the

criminal law.” United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 853-54 (1978) (internal

quotation omitted). See also United States v. P.H.E., 965, 854 (10th Cir. 1992)

(interlocutory appeals in criminal cases have been allowed only in the narrow

circumstance where “the substantive constitutional right at stake included the right

to be free from the adverse effect of undergoing the trial itself.”). 

The defendant contends that there is jurisdiction under the collateral order

doctrine as set out in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)

(an interlocutory order may be immediately appealable if it conclusively determines

the disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the

merits, and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment). This

argument is without merit. 

APPEALS DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 07-7066 Document: 010157572 Date Filed: 10/25/2007 Page: 2