11th Cir.

United States v. James

May 11, 2026 ·8:23-cr-00462-VMC-AAS-1 ·Per Curiam · By Maria Santos

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by Marquette James due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the notice of appeal was premature and that the issue could be reviewed in a subsequent appeal from the final judgment.

Background

Marquette James filed a pro se notice of appeal designating a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying his motion to withdraw a guilty plea. The district court had not yet rendered the recommendation final at the time of the filing, and James had not yet been sentenced.

The court’s reasoning

The court found it lacked jurisdiction for three reasons. First, the magistrate judge’s recommendation was not final when the notice of appeal was filed, and the district court’s later adoption did not cure the premature filing. Second, the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewable only from a final judgment and does not fall within the collateral order doctrine. Third, because James filed a second notice of appeal from his final judgment, the issue is properly reviewable in that appeal, and he is not entitled to two appeals.

What it means going forward

Defendants must ensure their notice of appeal is filed after a magistrate judge’s recommendation becomes final and after a final judgment is entered to properly appeal the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.