United States v. Chaudhry
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3
9th Cir.2011Background
- Chaudhry was convicted on sixteen counts of tax fraud and sought an ex parte continuance to undergo a psychiatric examination.
- Chaudhry’s doctor diagnosed a mental illness impairing understanding of the proceedings, leading Chaudhry to request a competency determination under 18 U.S.C. § 4244.
- The district court deemed § 4241 applicable, ordered a second competency examination, and ultimately held Chaudhry presently incompetent to be sentenced, committing him for evaluation under § 4241 to a FMC.
- The government later argued § 4244 applied; after hearings, the district court issued an August Order under § 4241 that Chaudhry be evaluated and provisionally detained for potential treatment.
- The government appealed the August Order; the district court later released Chaudhry following FMC report, and the government did not appeal the December release-related order.
- The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding the August Order was not a final judgment under § 1291 and § 3731 did not authorize review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August Order is a final judgment under §1291. | Government argued finality under §3731 and §1291. | Chaudhry contends the order is not final for review. | No jurisdiction; August Order not final under §1291. |
| Whether §3731(3) authorizes this appeal. | Government relies on third paragraph to review release decisions. | Chaudhry argues §3731(3) does not apply to this context. | §3731(3) does not provide jurisdiction here. |
| Whether the district court’s August Order effectively terminated prosecution. | Government asserts order terminates or effectively precludes prosecution. | Chaudhry asserts it did not terminate the case; it deferred sentencing. | Not a termination; order was provisional and not dismissive. |
| Whether collateral order or mandamus could provide jurisdiction. | Government contends alternative bases for jurisdiction. | Chaudhry argues not applicable/not raised. | Not addressed; jurisdiction not established under those paths. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Von Moos, 660 F.2d 748 (9th Cir.1981) (finality depends on continued authority to sentence)
- United States v. Woodruff, 50 F.3d 673 (9th Cir.1995) (§3731 jurisdiction for certain appeals despite non-final judgments)
- United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178 (9th Cir.1995) (prosecution termination and finality considerations)
- United States v. Donaghe, 924 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.1991) (finality related to provisional sentencing contexts)
- United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1996) (provisional or conditional actions in sentencing context)
- Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394 (1957) (finality notion in appellate review of judgments)
- United States v. Godinez-Ortiz, 563 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir.2009) (analogy of commitment/detention to bail considerations)
- United States v. Lapi, 458 F.3d 555 (7th Cir.2006) (district court can reevaluate competency under §4241 with pending indictment)
- United States v. Ecker, 78 F.3d 726 (1st Cir.1996) (competency evaluations and timing related to sentencing)