United States v. Khalid A. Shalhoub
855 F.3d 1255
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Khalid Shalhoub, a Saudi citizen who lived in Saudi Arabia, was indicted in 1997 in the Southern District of Florida under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act for removing his child from the U.S. and has never been arrested.
- A magistrate judge issued an arrest warrant and the district court labeled Shalhoub a “fugitive from justice.”
- In 2015 Shalhoub moved for his counsel to appear specially and to dismiss the indictment on multiple grounds (insufficient specificity, extraterritoriality, improper venue, comity, speedy trial), and argued he was not a fugitive.
- The district court denied the special-appearance motion, invoking the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and the doctrine of “constructive flight,” and offered that Shalhoub could appear in court to pursue his claims.
- Shalhoub appealed the denial as an immediately appealable collateral order and alternatively sought a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to rule on the merits without his appearance.
- The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied mandamus, finding Shalhoub has an adequate remedy (appearance) and no clear, indisputable right to the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is denial of a special-appearance motion to dismiss immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine? | Shalhoub: denial implicates due process, extraterritoriality, venue, speedy-trial and factual sufficiency that warrant interlocutory review. | Government: order does not implicate a right not to be tried or an interest like excessive bail; final-judgment rule bars interlocutory appeal. | No. Collateral order doctrine does not extend to this denial; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does the marginal-finality doctrine permit immediate appeal? | Shalhoub: alternative basis for jurisdiction. | Government: marginal-finality limited to unique facts and inconsistent with collateral-order rationale. | No. Court declines to apply marginal finality. |
| Is mandamus appropriate to compel the district court to rule without Shalhoub’s appearance? | Shalhoub: he has no obligation to travel and has no adequate alternative; delay prejudices him. | Government: appearance in district court is an adequate remedy; no clear abuse of discretion. | No. Mandamus denied—adequate means exist (appearance) and petitioner has no clear, indisputable right. |
| Did the district court clearly abuse its discretion by applying fugitive disentitlement/constructive flight? | Shalhoub: he was abroad when indicted and did not flee; label without hearing violates due process. | Government: doctrine applies to constructive flight; no entitlement to pre-label hearing beyond offer to appear. | No clear abuse. Doctrine properly applied; due-process protections not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (principle that a fugitive may be disentitled from calling on court resources)
- Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (scope of collateral order doctrine in criminal cases)
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (immediate appeal allowed when right not to be tried is at stake)
- Barnette v. United States, 129 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 1997) (constructive flight can trigger fugitive disentitlement)
- Magluta v. Samples, 162 F.3d 662 (11th Cir. 1998) (fugitive disentitlement permits sanction/judgment based on fugitive status)
- Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus standards; drastic, extraordinary remedy)
- Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (limits on collateral order doctrine)
- United States v. Bokhari, 757 F.3d 664 (7th Cir.) (contrast: rare Seventh Circuit decision treating certain dismissal orders as immediately appealable)