From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hunnewell

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Aug 22, 1988
855 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988)

Opinion

Misc. No. 88-8050.

Submitted July 19, 1988.

Decided August 22, 1988.

Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BOWNES and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appellant's "petition for permission to appeal" is denied. A district court's interlocutory denial of a motion to dismiss for violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C.App. § 1 et seq., is not an appealable order. United States v. Cejas, 817 F.2d 595, 596 (9th Cir. 1987). Such an order is not "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment" under the third prong of the three-prong test for the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment rule restated in Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 1055, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). "Because of the compelling interest in prompt trials, the Court has interpreted the requirements of the collateral-order exception to the final judgment rule with the utmost strictness in criminal cases." Id.

The petition is denied.


Summaries of

United States v. Hunnewell

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Aug 22, 1988
855 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988)
Case details for

United States v. Hunnewell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. DALE SCOTT HUNNEWELL, DEFENDANT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Aug 22, 1988

Citations

855 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Kane

Id. at 265, 102 S.Ct. at 3082. See also Midland Asphalt Corp. v. UnitedStates, 489 U.S. 794, 799, 109 S.Ct.…

Meyers v. United States

While this court has never addressed the question, other jurisdictions have held that the denial of a motion…