USCA11 Case: 23-10933 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10933
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DURANTE PIERRE NIMMONS,
Defendant- Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00003-WLS-TQL-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10933 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10933
Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the
jurisdictional question, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion. Durante Nimmons appeals the district court’s March 6, 2023,
order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the du-
ration of his pre-hospitalization period exceeded the statutory pe-
riod of four months under
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
The district court’s March 6 order is not immediately re-
viewable under the collateral order doctrine. While the district
court’s September 9, 2022, order found Nimmons incompetent to
stand trial and ordered him to be committed to the custody of the
U.S. Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment, the March
6 order did not. See United States v. Donofrio,
896 F.2d 1301, 1303
(11th Cir. 1990) (holding that appeal from an order finding the de-
fendant incompetent and committing him to the U.S. Attorney
General for hospitalization was immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine). Instead, that order denied Nimmons’s
motion to dismiss the indictment based on his claim that his pre-
hospitalization period exceeded four months, and his challenge to
that order is akin to a speedy trial challenge. It is thus not review-
able on interlocutory appeal. See
28 U.S.C. § 1291; United States v.
MacDonald,
435 U.S. 850, 857 & n.6 (1978) (holding that the denial
of a motion to dismiss the indictment based on speedy trial grounds
is not immediately appealable); Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S.
USCA11 Case: 23-10933 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-10933 Opinion of the Court 3
259, 265 (1984) (listing the requirements for an interlocutory appeal
under the collateral order doctrine); see also See United States v. Shal-
houb,
855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017) (noting that interlocutory
appeals are especially disfavored in criminal cases).
