United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Oscar Rivero-nunez, Defendant-appellant, 605 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1979)
Annotate this CaseAlan S. Ross, Jeffrey S. Weiner, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Jeffrey H. Kay, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Rivero-Nunez seeks to appeal from an order of the district court staying an order of the Magistrate in a F.R.Crim.P. Rule 40(b) matter. The Magistrate had ordered a hearing on defendant's claim that his presence in the district had been unlawfully secured.
A removal order is not an appealable order. U. S. v. McCray, 458 F.2d 389 (CA9, 1972), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 865, 93 S. Ct. 158, 34 L. Ed. 2d 113; In re Ellsberg, 446 F.2d 954 (CA1, 1971); Galloway v. U. S., 302 F.2d 457 (CA10, 1962); C. Wright, 3 Federal Practice and Procedure § 653 at 11 (1969). Nor do we perceive that an order of a district judge staying a proposed hearing on a removal order is appealable.
We, therefore, deny the motion of the United States to expedite the appeal and order the appeal dismissed.
We express no opinion on whether a district court has jurisdiction to reverse or revise a Rule 40(b) order of a Magistrate. See Bruno v. Hamilton, 521 F.2d 114 (CA8, 1975); United States v. Canada, 440 F. Supp. 22 (N.D. Ill., 1977).
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
