USA v. Wayne Jame

Filing

JUDGMENT ORDER (GREENAWAY JR., SHWARTZ and FUENTES, Circuit Judges), dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, filed. Judge: JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY JR., Authoring

Case: 17-1331

Document: 003112591769

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/12/2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 17-1331
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WAYNE A.G. JAMES,
Appellant
______________
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 3-15-cr-00042-001)
District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gómez
______________
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
______________
JUDGMENT ORDER
______________

This case is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Generally, rejections of speech-or-debate clause immunity are collaterally
appealable. Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506–08 (1979); Youngblood v. DeWeese,
352 F.3d 836, 838 (3d Cir. 2003). However, the District Court’s February 7 oral order
was not a definitive decision, even on the speech-or-debate issue. That order expressly
contemplated further review of supplemental materials. As such, it was not “made with
the expectation that [it] will be the final word on the subject addressed.” Praxis

Case: 17-1331

Document: 003112591769

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/12/2017

Properties, Inc. v. Colonial Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 947 F.2d 49, 54–55 (3d Cir. 1991).
Rather, the District Court’s February 7 oral order was “tentative, informal or
incomplete.” Swint v. Chambers Cty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995). Those
supplemental materials were then submitted—along with a second round of submissions
permitted by court order—but no subsequent, final order was issued reflecting additional
review.
Moreover, Appellant filed a motion asking the District Court, among other things,
to conclusively and formally rule on the speech-or-debate issue. The District Court has
not done so, even though it has acted on other motions. In this context, we cannot
interpret the District Court’s silence—over a very short period of time—as indicating that
the tentative February 7 order had crystallized into a final order. The District Court was
given an opportunity to say as much and declined the invitation. There is no indication
that “no further consideration is contemplated by the district court.” Martin v. Brown, 63
F.3d 1252, 1259 (3d Cir. 1995). Without a conclusive and final resolution of the speechor-debate issue, we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider the question.
We encourage the District Court to enter a final decision and order on the
defendant’s motion, taking into account the supplemental materials and making whatever
formal findings of fact that are necessary. See United States v. Menendez, 831 F.3d 155,
164 (3d Cir. 2016) (noting that we review speech-or-debate findings of fact for clear
error); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d) (“When factual issues are involved in deciding a
[pretrial criminal] motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record.”). The

2

Case: 17-1331

Document: 003112591769

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/12/2017

District Court should issue its decision in advance of trial so that we may review it. See,
e.g., United States v. Modanlo, 762 F.3d 403, 410-13 (4th Cir. 2014).
By the Court,

s/Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.
Circuit Judge
ATTEST:
s/ Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
Dated:

April 12, 2017

3