Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01138/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01138-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Austin Ray
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AUSTIN RAY, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-1138

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00147-MSK-2)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court sua sponte to consider whether this court has 

jurisdiction. Appellant is seeking review of the district court’s April 13, 2016 order, 

denying his motion to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. We conclude that we 

lack jurisdiction. See United States v. Hornung, 785 F.2d 868, 869 (10th Cir. 1986) (per 

curiam) (holding that the “denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for failure to 

comply with the Speedy Trial Act is not an appealable collateral order”).

As Appellant has been told repeatedly by this court, he must wait until entry of 

final judgment before he may appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Ray, No. 15-1455 (10th 

Cir. Dec. 17, 2015); United States v. Ray, No. 15-1406 (10th Cir. Dec. 17, 2015); United 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 2, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1138 Document: 01019612508 Date Filed: 05/02/2016 Page: 1 
2

States v. Ray, No. 15-1357 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2015); United States v. Ray, No. 15-1347 

(10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2015). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1138 Document: 01019612508 Date Filed: 05/02/2016 Page: 2