United States v. Alexander McAfee

USCA11 Case: 26-12804 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-12804 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEXANDER JUSTIN MCAFEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:26-cr-00129-KKM-GDP-1 ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Justin McAfee, a criminal defendant proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to

USCA11 Case: 26-12804 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 26-12804 dismiss the indictment and for the court to take judicial notice of its abuse of discretion.

We lack jurisdiction over McAfee’s appeal because the dis- trict court’s orders denying McAfee’s motions are not final or oth- erwise appealable. The appealed orders are not final because McAfee has not been convicted or sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985) (explain- ing that, in a criminal case, the sentence is the final judgment); Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (explaining that appellate review is generally prohibited in a criminal case until the defendant has been convicted and sentenced).

Further, the appealed orders are not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, as McAfee may effectively challenge the orders on appeal from a final judgment. See United States v. Shal- houb, 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017); Richardson Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985) (explaining that the doctrine ap- plies to district court orders “affecting rights that will become irre- trievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal”).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.