United States v. Andre Twitty
── United States v. Andre Twitty ──
Case No.: 25-13433
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date: April 01, 2026
Category: NEW
USCA11 Case: 25-13433 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-13433
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE J. TWITTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cr-00005-LGW-BWC-1
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Twitty, a criminal defendant proceeding pro se, ap-
peals from the district court’s September 18, 2025 order denying his
USCA11 Case: 25-13433 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 25-13433
motion to dismiss the count in his indictment brought under 18
U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).
We lack jurisdiction over Twitty’s appeal because the dis-
trict court’s denial is not final or otherwise appealable. First, the
denial is not final because Twitty has not been sentenced on any
count and, thus, there is not a final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263-64 (1984) (explaining that
appellate review is generally prohibited in a criminal case until the
defendant has been convicted and sentenced). Second, the order is
not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as Twitty may
effectively challenge the order on appeal from a final judgment. See
United States v. Shalhoub, 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017); Rich-
ardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985) (explaining
that the doctrine applies to district court orders “affecting rights
that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate ap-
peal”).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}