United States v. Theodore Carrington, Jr., 91 F.4th 252

Theodore Carrington was indicted for transmitting a threatening communication and was later found incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness.
The district court ordered Carrington committed for competency restoration pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), with his evaluation hindered by delays in admission and assessment.
After determining there was no substantial likelihood of competency restoration, the government initiated civil commitment proceedings in a separate district under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.
Carrington's counsel raised objections regarding untimely delays in his § 4241(d) confinement but did not request specific relief from the criminal court, instead preserving the arguments for the civil commitment court.
Following the criminal court's incompetency and unrestorability finding, the indictment was dismissed without prejudice and Carrington appealed, seeking appellate review of the criminal court's timeliness and ineffective assistance rulings.
The court of appeals was tasked with deciding whether it had jurisdiction to hear Carrington’s appeal from the dismissal and the related order finding him subject to § 4246 proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether order finding Carrington subject to §4246 is appealable as a final judgment	Carrington argued the order functions as a final judgment because it resolved underlying issues preventing further litigation in the criminal case	The government countered that dismissal of an indictment without prejudice is not a final judgment under criminal appellate procedure	Not appealable; not a final judgment
Whether the order is appealable as a collateral order	Carrington asserted the order was a collateral order because it conclusively resolved applicability of §4246 and affected substantial rights	The government argued only true custody orders or specific exceptions are collateral orders in criminal cases, and this was neither	Not appealable; not a collateral order
Whether Carrington’s timeliness objection to § 4241(d) custody was preserved for review	Carrington claimed that his objections to delays were preserved for appellate and subsequent review	The government responded that Carrington did not seek substantive relief in the criminal court and such objections should be raised there	Objection was not preserved; not reviewable here
Whether claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were appealable in this posture	Carrington raised ineffective assistance claims regarding his representation	The government contended these claims are not properly before the court at this procedural stage	Not reviewable due to lack of jurisdiction

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (holding indefinite detention of incompetent defendants unconstitutional)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (establishing the collateral order doctrine)
Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (final judgment rule in criminal cases)
Caitlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1945) (final judgment defined as ending the litigation on merits)
Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1977) (collateral order appealability in Double Jeopardy context)
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (collateral appeal of bail decisions)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1990) (collateral estoppel requires same burden of proof)