Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01450/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01450-0/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. 15-1450

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

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

The defendant, Austin Ray, filed a pro se notice of appeal identifying an 

interlocutory district court minute order as the subject of the appeal. This court 

challenged the defendant to demonstrate why this court has jurisdiction to consider the 

appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 27.2(B). The defendant filed a pro se response. Upon 

consideration of the response, the record, and the applicable law, we dismiss the appeal 

for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction to review only final decisions of 

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

conviction and imposition of sentence.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 

(1984). Ray has not been convicted in the underlying proceedings. Thus, no final order or 

judgment exists from which the defendant can appeal.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 14, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1450 Document: 01019538819 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Page: 1 
2

Instead, the defendant asks the court to apply an exception to the final judgment 

rule. Ray contends that the minute order denying his two motions requesting dismissal for 

lack of jurisdiction resulting from the government’s alleged violations of the Interstate 

Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”) are immediately reviewable because the denial affects 

his right not to be tried. We disagree.

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

Flanagan at 264. This court has never held that an order denying a motion to dismiss for 

violations of the IAD is immediately appealable. We said as much in the order dismissing 

Ray’s prior appeal that effectively raised the same issue, Case No. 15-1347. Our 

dismissal of Case No. 15-1347 for lack of appellate jurisdiction is the law of the case. As 

such, the court’s prior decision on the issue governs our disposition of the instant appeal. 

Ray’s arguments to the contrary do not persuade us otherwise.

Because the court lacks jurisdiction, this appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1450 Document: 01019538819 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Page: 2