United States v. Hunnewell

First Circuit

United States v. Hunnewell

855 F.2d 1, 1988 WL 88307

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 1988

DocketMisc. No. 88-8050

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 855 F.2d 1 (United States v. Hunnewell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

855 F.2d 1, 1988 WL 88307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hunnewell-ca1-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack