Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01156/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mikeal G. Stine
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MIKEAL GLENN STINE, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-1156

(D.C. No. 1:13-CR-00491-CMA-1)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

The defendant, Mikeal G. Stine, filed a pro se notice of appeal identifying five 

interlocutory district court minute orders as the subjects of this appeal. 

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction to review only final decisions of 

district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A criminal case is not considered final “until conviction 

and imposition of sentence.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984). Mr. 

Stine has not been convicted, and the underlying proceeding is ongoing. Thus, no final 

order or judgment exists from which he can appeal. 

Exceptions to the final judgment rule are particularly rare in criminal cases. Id. at 

264. “Under the collateral-order doctrine, we can hear immediate appeals of decisions 

before final judgment that ‘[1] finally determine claims of right [2] separable from, and 

collateral to, rights asserted in the action, [and] [3] too important to be denied review and 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 5, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1156 Document: 01019426103 Date Filed: 05/05/2015 Page: 1 
2

too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until 

the whole case is adjudicated.’” United States v. Angilau, 717 F.3d 781, 785 (10th Cir. 

2013) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) 

(alterations in original)). The minute orders that are the subjects of this appeal do not 

qualify as exceptions to the final judgment rule. 

We take judicial notice that Mr. Stine filed a prior appeal seeking similar relief, 

see Case No. 15-1104, and also has a pending pro se petition for writ of mandamus, 

seeking similar relief. See Case No. 15-1117, In re Stine. 

We caution Mr. Stine that he could be subject to filing restrictions in this court if 

he repeatedly files the same or similar appeals. See Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 

17 F.3d 314, 316 (10th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1448 

(10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1156 Document: 01019426103 Date Filed: 05/05/2015 Page: 2