Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03024/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guy M. Neighbors
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GUY NEIGHBORS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-3024

(D.C. No. 2:07-CR-20124-CM-2)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Defendant Guy M. Neighbors appeals from the district court’s January 22, 2015 

order taking the defendant’s Motion for Return of Property Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 

41(g) under advisement and granting in part his Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant 

to Federal Rule Crim. P. 41. After the district court denied a series of motions filed by the 

defendant that sought reconsideration of the January 22 order, this court challenged 

whether it had jurisdiction to consider the order being appealed. The defendant filed a 

response. After the court directed the government to answer the defendant’s response, the 

government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal also for lack of jurisdiction. The 

defendant filed a response to the government’s motion to dismiss. Having considered the 

pleadings filed in this appeal as well as the record, we grant the government’s motion and 

dismiss the appeal. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3024 Document: 01019439359 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 1 
2

This court generally has jurisdiction to review only final decisions of district 

courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, except in specific situations not applicable here. A final 

decision is one that fully terminates all matters as to all parties and causes of action and 

leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute its decision. Utah v. Norton, 396 

F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005). 

The defendant is not appealing a final order. The January 22 order states that the 

defendant’s motion “is taken under advisement.” The district court did not state that the 

motion is either granted or denied. No final determination has been made on the 

defendant’s motion. Without a final decision from the district court, this court lacks 

jurisdiction consider the defendant’s appeal of that order. The defendant’s arguments in 

his response to the show cause order and his response to the government’s motion to 

dismiss do not persuade us otherwise. 

In sum, interlocutory district court orders like the one being appealed here are not 

immediately appealable. Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Finesilver, 546 F.2d 338, 342 (10th 

Cir. 1976) (“Every interlocutory order involves, to some degree, a potential loss or harm. 

That risk, however, must be balanced against the need for efficient federal judicial 

administration, the need for the appellate courts to be free from the harassment of 

fragmentary and piecemeal review of cases otherwise resulting from a succession of 

appeals from the various rulings which might arise during the course of litigation.” 

(internal quotations omitted)). 

Appellate Case: 15-3024 Document: 01019439359 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 2 
3

The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order is granted. 

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3024 Document: 01019439359 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 3