USA v. Khalil Rayyan
OPINION filed : The governtment's motion to dissmiss [5561219-2] is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED. decision not for publication. Gilbert S. Merritt, Alice M. Batchelder (AUTHORING), and John M. Rogers, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0528n.06
CASE NO. 16-1579
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
KHALIL ABU RAYYAN,
Sep 12, 2016
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Khalil Abu Rayyan was indicted on two
felony offenses and is in federal custody, awaiting trial.
The government moved for a
competency evaluation, which the district court granted over Rayyan’s objection.
moved the district court to reconsider, moved the district court to stay the order pending appeal,
and moved this court to stay the order upon filing this appeal. All those motions were denied.
Rayyan brought this interlocutory appeal pursuant to the collateral-order doctrine to
challenge his particular “loss of liberty” corresponding to the court-ordered and involuntary
commitment for the psychiatric evaluation, citing United States v. Davis, 93 F.3d 1286, 1289
(6th Cir. 1996), among others.
In the meantime, both the psychiatric evaluation and the
associated involuntary commitment/detention were completed. Consequently, the government
has moved to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as moot, because we can no longer grant relief
that would satisfy Rayyan’s motion or the collateral-order doctrine. See Rosales-Garcia v.
Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 394 (6th Cir. 2003); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982).
The government’s motion is granted. This appeal is DISMISSED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?