Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khalil Abu RAYYAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-12
Citations: 668 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: CASE NO. 16-1579
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khalil Abu RAYYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 646–646

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khalil Abu RAYYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 16-1579
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed September 12, 2016
Stephanie M. Gorgon, Ronald W. Water-street, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Andrew Goetz, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Todd Shanker, Benton C. Martin, Federal Defender Office, Detroit, MI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge
Khalil Abu Rayyan was indicted on two felony offenses and is in federal custody, awaiting trial. The government moved for a competency evaluation, which the district court granted over Rayyan's objection. Rayyan moved the district court to reconsider, moved the district court to stay the order pending appeal, and moved this court to stay the order upon filing this appeal. All those motions were denied.
Rayyan brought this interlocutory appeal pursuant to the collateral-order doctrine to challenge his particular "loss of liberty" corresponding to the court-ordered and involuntary commitment for the psychiatric evaluation, citing United States v. Davis, 93 F.3d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1996), among others. In the meantime, both the psychiatric evaluation and the associated involuntary commitment/detention were completed. Consequently, the government has moved to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as moot, because we can no longer grant relief that would satisfy Rayyan's motion or the collateral-order doctrine. See Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 394 (6th Cir. 2003); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982).
The government's motion is granted. This appeal is DISMISSED.