Wright

MEMORANDUM **

Jason Wright, who was indicted for advertisement, distribution, and possession of child pornography, interlocutorily appeals the district court’s protective discovery order entered pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub.L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (effective July 27, 2006) (“the Act”). 1 In accor *52 dance with the Act, the district court rejected Wright’s request to obtain mirror copies of the data storage equipment seized from Wright’s residence (“mirror copies”), which, according to the United States, contain child pornography. Instead, the district court entered a protective order requiring Wright’s forensic expert to conduct his examination of the mirror copies in a secure room at the United States Attorney’s Office.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Because the facts are known to the parties, we revisit them only as necessary.

We have appellate jurisdiction over “all final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . “A ‘final decision’ generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.…