United States v. McKeighan

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
September 25, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 07-3192
(D.C. No. 06-CR-20066-JW L)
JA M ES A . M C KEIG H A N , (D . Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant James M cKeighan seeks to appeal adverse rulings of the
magistrate judge on his motions to reconsider the imposition of pretrial detention
or, alternatively, to modify the conditions of his pretrial detention. By order
entered August 28, 2007, we directed defendant to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the rulings he
*
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral
argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
10th Cir. R. 32.1.
seeks to appeal are not final and appealable orders. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c)
(providing that appeal from decision denying revocation or amendment of
detention order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291); United States v. Harrison,
396 F.3d 1280, 1281 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal from
magistrate judge’s detention order for lack of jurisdiction). Neither defendant nor
his counsel has responded to the order to show cause.
W e conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and it must be
dismissed. Defendant’s counsel has filed a motion to w ithdraw . As a preliminary
matter, w e appoint him for these proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and direct the Clerk to forward to him the necessary voucher
materials. Because we are dismissing this appeal, however, counsel’s pending
motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot. The appeal is DISM ISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
Entered for the Court
PER CURIAM
-2-