United States v. Gomez-Gomez
643 F.3d 463
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gomez-Gomez, a Mexican citizen, was charged in a superseding indictment with drug trafficking, money laundering, and operating a continuing criminal enterprise.
- He claimed he was a juvenile and moved to dismiss the indictment under the Juvenile Delinquency Act; the district court held he was an adult and denied the motion.
- The district court conducted a two-day hearing on the juvenile issue, weighing conflicting birth-date evidence from multiple sources.
- Gomez-Gomez sought three pre-trial remedies: reconsideration, depositions in Mexico, and extended time to appeal; the district court denied all three.
- Gomez-Gomez appealed the denials and sought mandamus relief directing depositions or a de novo ruling; this Court lacked interlocutory jurisdiction and denied mandamus relief.
- The court acknowledged that if convicted, Gomez-Gomez could challenge the district court’s dismissal-denial ruling on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeals are interlocutory collateral-order review | Gomez-Gomez contends collateral-order review applies. | The government argues denials are not collateral orders. | Jurisdiction lacking; collateral-order prerequisites not met. |
| Whether the mandamus petition should be granted | Gomez-Gomez seeks deposition and reconsideration relief via mandamus. | Mandamus is improper where other remedies exist and orders are not clearly erroneous. | Mandamus denied; factors do not justify extraordinary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.1994) (jurisdictional sua sponte duty to determine jurisdiction)
- Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court 1984) (final judgment rule in criminal cases; collateral order doctrine limits)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court 1949) (collateral order doctrine criteria)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (Supreme Court 1978) (requirements of collateral order doctrine in criminal cases)
- United States v. One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d 841 (6th Cir.1994) (appealability of transfer for adult prosecution; distinction from factual juvenile status)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court 1985) (denial of qualified immunity as a final decision when legal issues dominate)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court 1995) (limits on appellate review of pretrial record and genuine issues of fact)
- Lora v. O'Heaney, 602 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.2010) (collateral-order-type consideration in pretrial matters)
- Correa-Gomez, 328 F.3d 297 (6th Cir.2003) (timeliness and requirements for motions under Rule 4(b))