Background
Wayne L. Lewis, proceeding pro se, sought to appeal a district court order in his criminal case that rescheduled the date of his sentencing hearing. The appeal was filed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that federal appellate jurisdiction is limited to final orders and certain interlocutory or collateral orders under twenty-eight U.S.C. Section twelve ninety-one and twenty-eight U.S.C. Section twelve ninety-two. Citing United States v. Sueiro and Flanagan v. United States, the court noted that the final judgment rule is at its strongest in criminal law to ensure speedy resolution of cases. The court found that the order rescheduling the sentencing hearing was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Under the final judgment rule, federal appellate court jurisdiction is limited to reviewing final decisions of the district court.
United States v. Sueiro, 946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020)
What it means going forward
Defendants cannot appeal procedural scheduling orders regarding sentencing dates until after the sentence is imposed and a final judgment is entered.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download