Opinion ID: 167746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: in tr o d u c tio n

Text: Timothy deShazer appeals the partial denial of his M otion to Continue Trial, or in the A lternative, Renew al of M otion to D ismiss - Jackson v. Indiana (the “M otion”). Although the district court granted M r. deShazer’s request to continue his trial during the pendency of additional competency evaluations, it denied that part of the M otion seeking outright dismissal of the indictment. On appeal, M r. deShazer asserts the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment because his pretrial confinement during the pendency of competency proceedings has prejudiced his ability to present an adequate defense to the charges against him. Although M r. deShazer asserts he raises this claim pursuant to Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), this court concludes his claim is, in reality, a disguised speedy-trial claim. Because this court does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the district courts refusing to dismiss indictments on speedy-trial grounds, United States v. M acDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 861 (1978), we dism iss M r. deShazer’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.