USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14219
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN HOLLAND,
EDMUNDO COTA,
WILLIAM MOORE,
Defendant-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14219
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00234-AT-CMS-1
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The motions to dismiss filed by Edmundo Cota and John
Holland are DENIED and this appeal may proceed. The govern-
ment appeals from the district court’s pre-trial order denying the
government’s motion to admit alleged co-conspirator statements
under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Although that is an interlocutory
order and there has not yet been a trial or judgment, we have juris-
diction over this appeal under
18 U.S.C. § 3731.
Under § 3731, the government may file an interlocutory ap-
peal from an order “suppressing or excluding evidence.”
18 U.S.C.
§ 3731. Section 3731 must be “liberally construed to effectuate its
purposes.”
Id. Our predecessor court held that an order denying
the admission of alleged co-conspirator statements after a James
hearing is an order excluding evidence for purposes of § 3731.
United States v. Perry,
624 F.2d 29, 30 (5th Cir. 1980); see United States
v. James,
590 F.2d 575, 578-82 (5th Cir. 1979) (providing process for
evaluating whether alleged co-conspirator statements are admissi-
ble under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) before trial).
USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-14219 Opinion of the Court 3
Because the district court denied the government’s motion
to admit the alleged co-conspirator statements after thoroughly
considering their admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and con-
ducting what it called a James hearing on paper, we conclude that
the order in this case is analogous to an order refusing to admit
alleged co-conspirator statements after a James hearing, which is
immediately appealable. See Perry,
624 F.2d at 30; United States
v. Drogoul,
1 F.3d 1546, 1551 n.13 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that an
order is appealable under § 3731 if it has “the practical effect of ex-
cluding evidence at trial”). Furthermore, this conclusion is con-
sistent with the liberal construction of § 3731 required by the stat-
ute itself.
