Case: 23-50812 Document: 00517059192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50812 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 7, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Gavin Blake Davis, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:22-CR-219-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Gavin Davis is a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se. This is an inter- locutory appeal of the denial of his purported 18 U.S.C. § 3164 motion for immediate release from detention.

We first examine the basis of our jurisdiction. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50812 Document: 00517059192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2024

No. 23-50812

over appeals only from final orders per 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final per a jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral order doc- trine; (3) interlocutory orders specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (4) inter- locutory orders that are properly certified for appeal by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988).

Davis’s notice of interlocutory appeal asserts that he is appealing the denial of his motion for immediate release under § 3164. But § 3164 became ineffective on July 1, 1980, when the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3162 took effect. See 18 U.S.C. § 3163(c); United States v. Krohn, 558 F.2d 390, 393 (8th Cir. 1977). Section 3162 now provides for the dismissal of an indictment when the Speedy Trial Act is violated. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1), (2). But we lack jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals of denials of Speedy Trial Act rulings. See United States v. Crawford Enters., 754 F.2d 1272, 1273 (5th Cir. 1985).

In addition, Davis has filed motions in this court seeking to stay the trial in the district court, to consolidate this case with another pending inter- locutory appeal (No. 23-50917), for the appointment of counsel, for release from detention per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, and to extend the time to file a reply to the government’s response to his motion for release. In light of our determination that we lack jurisdiction, Davis’s motions are DENIED. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider Davis’s interlocutory appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED.