United States v. Hos, 696 F.3d 869

HOS was arrested and indicted for various offenses and claimed he was a juvenile when they were committed.
The district court found HOS to be a juvenile, which precluded an automatic adult prosecution but allowed transfer if in the interest of justice.
One day before the district court’s juvenile finding, the U.S. Attorney filed a juvenile delinquency information and a transfer-to-adult-prosecution application, which the district court granted on remand.
On remand, the district court did not follow through with the remand exercise and instead revoked the age finding based on a Mexican birth certificate indicating HOS was 23 at the time of the offenses, ordering adult prosecution.
HOS appealed, challenging jurisdiction and the merits of relitigating age and the district court’s age finding, raising issues about abuse of discretion and prejudice.
The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s order, holding no abuse of discretion and that the district court’s age finding was supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal properly before the court as a collateral order?	Govt: jurisdiction exists under Gerald N. collateral-order framework.	HOS: not properly appealable at this stage under Gomez-Gomez framework.	Yes; interlocutory appeal jurisdiction affirmed.
May the government relitigate the defendant’s age for an interest-of-justice transfer?	Govt: age is determinative for transfer; it can be revisited.	HOS: age is settled law of the case and cannot be relitigated.	The district court may reconsider age; no error in allowing re-litigation.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining HOS was an adult?	Govt: evidence—including admissions and a birth certificate—supports adult status.	HOS: findings were flawed or prejudicial to juvenile status.	No abuse of discretion; findings supported by the record.
Was there prejudice from any delay in obtaining the birth certificate?	Govt: delay not prejudicial; testimony from parents could have supported juvenile status.	HOS: delay prejudiced his ability to defend as a juvenile.	Not prejudicial; no reversible error.

U.S. v. Gerald N., 900 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizes collateral-order jurisdiction for transfer-into-adult proceedings)
U.S. v. Gomez-Gomez, 643 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes legal vs factual questions for interlocutory review)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (factual issues may implicate review concerns in appellate context)
Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219 (7th Cir. 1995) (standard for reconsideration of earlier rulings)
U.S. v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam reaffirmation of reconsideration principles)
U.S. v. Juvenile Male, 316 F. App’x 535 (9th Cir. 2008) (remand for specific § 5032 factors and supplementation of record)