Court Opinion

ID: 9928659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 20:01:22.071181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:33.012270
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13955     Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                  No. 23-13955
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       PIERRE C. MARC,
       a.k.a. Pierre Cine Marc,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00071-WFJ-AAS-1
USCA11 Case: 23-13955      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13955

                            ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Pierre Marc, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s en-
       dorsed order which directed the government to respond to a single
       claim raised in his motion seeking judicial notice of fraud upon the
       court, an evidentiary hearing, and relief for constitutional viola-
       tions. He also appeals the court’s endorsed order denying his mo-
       tion to correct the first endorsed order.
               The courts of appeals have jurisdiction over “appeals from
       all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28
       U.S.C. § 1291. “In a criminal case, the final judgment means the
       sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” United States v. Curry,
       760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Berman v. United States,
       302 U.S. 211, 212-13 (1937). The orders that Marc seeks to appeal
       are not final because his case has not proceeded to judgment; he
       has not been convicted or sentenced. See Curry, 760 F.2d at 1079.
              Under the collateral order doctrine, we may review interloc-
       utory orders that: (1) conclusively determine the disputed ques-
       tion; (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from and
       collateral to the merits of the action; and (3) would be effectively
       unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. United States v.
       Shalhoub, 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Flanagan v.
       United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263-64 (1984)). The collateral order
USCA11 Case: 23-13955      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13955               Opinion of the Court                          3

       doctrine is narrow, and its “reach is limited to trial court orders af-
       fecting rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an im-
       mediate appeal.” Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424,
       430-31 (1985). Because Marc may raise, on appeal from a final judg-
       ment, arguments about alleged fraudulent conduct, the denial of
       an evidentiary hearing, and alleged constitutional violations, the
       orders he challenges are not now reviewable under the collateral
       order doctrine. See Shalhoub, 855 F.3d at 1260; Koller, 472 U.S. at
       430-31.
             All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No petition for
       rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other
       requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.