United States v. John Holland

USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 22-14219

Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOHN HOLLAND, EDMUNDO COTA, WILLIAM MOORE,

Defendant-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 22-14219

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00234-AT-CMS-1 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The motions to dismiss filed by Edmundo Cota and John Holland are DENIED and this appeal may proceed. The govern- ment appeals from the district court’s pre-trial order denying the government’s motion to admit alleged co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Although that is an interlocutory order and there has not yet been a trial or judgment, we have juris- diction over this appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

Under § 3731, the government may file an interlocutory ap- peal from an order “suppressing or excluding evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Section 3731 must be “liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.” Id. Our predecessor court held that an order denying the admission of alleged co-conspirator statements after a James hearing is an order excluding evidence for purposes of § 3731. United States v. Perry, 624 F.2d 29, 30 (5th Cir. 1980); see United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575, 578-82 (5th Cir. 1979) (providing process for evaluating whether alleged co-conspirator statements are admissi- ble under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) before trial).

USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3 22-14219 Opinion of the Court 3

Because the district court denied the government’s motion to admit the alleged co-conspirator statements after thoroughly considering their admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and con- ducting what it called a James hearing on paper, we conclude that the order in this case is analogous to an order refusing to admit alleged co-conspirator statements after a James hearing, which is immediately appealable. See Perry, 624 F.2d at 30; United States v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1551 n.13 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that an order is appealable under § 3731 if it has “the practical effect of ex- cluding evidence at trial”). Furthermore, this conclusion is con- sistent with the liberal construction of § 3731 required by the stat- ute itself.