USCA11 Case: 23-10897 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10773
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIUS CALHOUN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-00167-ECM-SMD-4
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10897 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10773
____________________
No. 23-10897
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIUS CALHOUN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-00167-ECM-SMD-4
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon our review of the record and the response to the juris-
dictional questions, we DISMISS both of these appeals for lack of
jurisdiction. First, as Appellant acknowledges, a notice of appeal
USCA11 Case: 23-10897 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Page: 3 of 4
23-10773 Opinion of the Court 3
must designate already existing orders, and we do not have juris-
diction to review future court orders. See Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd.
of Cnty. Comm’rs,
162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998). Appellant’s ap-
peal of an anticipated ruling on his motion to dismiss the indict-
ment is thus not proper.
Second, the district court’s March 1, 2023 order granting the
government’s motion to continue trial is not immediately appeala-
ble under the collateral order doctrine. That order did not conclu-
sively find Appellant incompetent and commit him to the custody
of the Attorney General. See United States v. Donofrio,
896 F.2d 1301
(11th Cir. 1990) (holding that an order finding a defendant incom-
petent to stand trial and committing him to the custody of the At-
torney General was an immediately-appealable collateral order).
Instead, the district court delayed the criminal proceedings until its
previously-ordered commitment could occur, and a challenge to
that delay is akin to a speedy trial challenge, which is not reviewa-
ble on interlocutory appeal. See United States v. MacDonald,
435 U.S. 850, 857 (1978).
Accordingly, appeal no. 23-10773 is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction. Further, because our dismissal of appeal no. 23-10773
will lift the district court’s March 16, 2023 order staying the pro-
ceedings pending that appeal, appeal no. 23-10897, which chal-
lenges that order, is DISMISSED as MOOT. See Christian Coal. of
Fla., Inc. v. United States,
662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011)
(providing that an issue is moot “when it no longer presents a live
USCA11 Case: 23-10897 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10773
controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful
relief.”). All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
