Court Opinion

ID: 9399598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 20:04:05.255367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:24.330067
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10933    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 06/05/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10933
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DURANTE PIERRE NIMMONS,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00003-WLS-TQL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10933      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 06/05/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10933

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
       jurisdictional question, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Durante Nimmons appeals the district court’s March 6, 2023,
       order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the du-
       ration of his pre-hospitalization period exceeded the statutory pe-
       riod of four months under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
              The district court’s March 6 order is not immediately re-
       viewable under the collateral order doctrine. While the district
       court’s September 9, 2022, order found Nimmons incompetent to
       stand trial and ordered him to be committed to the custody of the
       U.S. Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment, the March
       6 order did not. See United States v. Donofrio, 896 F.2d 1301, 1303
       (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that appeal from an order finding the de-
       fendant incompetent and committing him to the U.S. Attorney
       General for hospitalization was immediately appealable under the
       collateral order doctrine). Instead, that order denied Nimmons’s
       motion to dismiss the indictment based on his claim that his pre-
       hospitalization period exceeded four months, and his challenge to
       that order is akin to a speedy trial challenge. It is thus not review-
       able on interlocutory appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; United States v.
       MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 857 & n.6 (1978) (holding that the denial
       of a motion to dismiss the indictment based on speedy trial grounds
       is not immediately appealable); Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S.
USCA11 Case: 23-10933       Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 06/05/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       23-10933                Opinion of the Court                           3

       259, 265 (1984) (listing the requirements for an interlocutory appeal
       under the collateral order doctrine); see also See United States v. Shal-
       houb, 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017) (noting that interlocutory
       appeals are especially disfavored in criminal cases).