United States v. Antonio Romero-Ochoa

DISCUSSION

[1] Our jurisdiction is typically limited to final decisions of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656 (1977). Romero-Ochoa concedes that the district court has not made a final decision regarding the mer- 1400 UNITED STATES v. ROMERO-OCHOA its of his claim. He argues, however, that we should exercise jurisdiction over his interlocutory appeal, either because his appeal meets the requirements of the collateral order doctrine, or because he is entitled to a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. As explained below, neither of these arguments has merit.

A. Collateral Order Doctrine

[2] Romero-Ochoa first argues that the district court’s denial of his motion gives us jurisdiction to decide his inter- locutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine, first announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The Supreme Court held that as a “practical construction” of § 1291’s final decision requirement, appel- late courts should exercise jurisdiction over a small class of decisions “too important to be denied review and too indepen- dent of the cause itself to require…