United States v. Hunnewell

855 F.2d 1, 1988 WL 88307
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided August 22, 1988·No. Misc. No. 88-8050·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Hunnewell, 855 F.2d 1, 1988 WL 88307 (1st Cir. 1988).

855 F.2d 1 (United States v. Hunnewell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hailey
257 F.3d 1162 (Tenth Circuit, 2001)
Meyers v. United States
730 A.2d 155 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1999)
United States v. Joseph C. Kane
955 F.2d 110 (First Circuit, 1992)