United States v. Marquett James

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 11, 2026
• Docket: 25-12965
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12965 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12965 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

MARQUETT JAMES, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cr-00462-VMC-AAS-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. USCA11 Case: 25-12965 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12965

Liberally construed, Marquette James’s pro se notice of ap- peal designates the magistrate judge’s July 23 report and recom- mendation (“R&R”) that James’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea be denied. See Carmichael v. United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020). We lack jurisdiction to review the R&R for several reasons. First, the magistrate judge’s recommendation had not been ren- dered final by the district court at the time of the filing of this notice of appeal, and the district court’s subsequent adoption of the R&R did not cure James’s premature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998). Sec- ond, at the time of the filing of this notice of appeal, James had not yet been sentenced, and the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, such that it does not fall within the collateral order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Shalhoub, 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017). Lastly, be- cause James has since filed a second notice of appeal from his final judgment, the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea is reviewable in that appeal, and James is not entitled to two appeals. See Mickles on behalf of herself v. Country Club Inc., 887 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2018); United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1296-97 (5th Cir. 1978).