USCA11 Case: 25-11655 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11655 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SCOTT LEE HUSS, a.k.a. jryako,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cr-20087-KMM-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-11655 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11655

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

PER CURIAM: Scott Lee Huss was recently indicted, arrested, and detained pending trial. Proceeding pro se, Huss filed a notice of appeal that we liberally construe as challenging his February 27, 2025, indict- ment; the district judge’s April 25, 2025, paperless order denying his pro se motion to dismiss the indictment and for release; and the magistrate judge’s April 28, 2025, order granting the government’s motion for pretrial detention. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), (c)(7) (requiring that a notice of appeal designate the appealed order or judgment but providing that failure to do so is not fatal to the ap- peal); Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 80 (11th Cir. 2001) (ex- plaining that we liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3); Car- michael v. United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (ex- plaining that we liberally construe pro se filings).

Neither the indictment nor either of those orders is a final or otherwise appealable decision. First, to the extent Huss seeks re- view of the indictment itself, it is not a decision by the district court, much less a final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that the courts of appeals have jurisdiction over “appeals from all final de- cisions of the district courts”); United States v. Gulledge, 739 F.2d 582, 584 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that the final judgment rule applies in criminal cases).

Second, the April 25, 2025, paperless order denying the pro se motion is not final because it left charges against Huss pending, USCA11 Case: 25-11655 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 3 of 4

25-11655 Opinion of the Court 3 and it is not appealable as a collateral order because it is not collat- eral to the merits of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263-65 (1984) (explaining that appellate review is generally prohibited in a criminal case until the defendant has been convicted and sentenced); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) (defining the “small class” of deci- sions that are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine). Additionally, Huss’s motion did not contain a cogniza- ble legal argument, much less a cognizable argument for a right that would be irretrievably lost if our review were postponed; it instead appears to have sought dismissal on the grounds of equita- ble subrogation, suretyship, and the doctrine of trust merger. See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 266 (explaining that orders denying certain motions to dismiss indictments can be appealable under the collat- eral order doctrine); United States v. Bobo, 419 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining, however, that “frivolous claims . . . do not afford appellate courts jurisdiction to review interlocutory or- ders”).

Third, the April 28, 2025, order granting the government’s motion for pretrial detention is not appealable because it was en- tered by a magistrate judge and has not been rendered final by a district judge. See United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980) (“The law is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdic- tion to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.”); United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that we are bound to follow Renfro under our prior panel precedent rule); see also 28 U.S.C. § 3145(b)-(c) (providing for appeal of a USCA11 Case: 25-11655 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-11655 detention order from a magistrate judge to the district court and, separately, for appeal to us under 28 U.S.C. § 1291).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.