United States v. Josue Rodas

── United States v. Josue Rodas ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 25-3024 September Term, 2025 FILED ON: MAY 22, 2026 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. JOSUE EDUARDO RODAS, APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:20-cr-00148-1) Before: RAO and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge JUDGMENT We considered this appeal on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties. The panel afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is hereby ORDERED that the appeal be DISMISSED. * * * Josue Rodas pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary. D.C. Code § 22-801(b). The district court sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and four months and supervised release for three years. The court also imposed a suspended sentence of (1) imprisonment for one year and two months and (2) probation for one day. After Rodas’ release from prison, he allegedly violated several supervised-release conditions, and the Probation Office petitioned to revoke his supervised release. When a defendant’s supervised release is revoked, the court can sentence him to additional time in prison. 1  Rodas moved to dismiss the revocation proceedings, arguing that his supervised release ended before he allegedly violated its conditions. The district court denied the motion. Rodas then renewed his motion to dismiss the revocation proceedings, and the district court denied it as well. Rodas appealed the order denying his renewed motion. He asserted that this court has appellate jurisdiction per 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), which covers “review of an otherwise final sentence,” and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which covers review of “final decisions of the district courts.” We lack appellate jurisdiction. The district court’s order is not an appealable “final sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Before imposing a “sentence,” the district court must revoke Rodas’ supervised release, and to revoke it, the court must find that Rodas violated the conditions of his release. The court has done none of that yet. As of this appeal, the only sentence any court has imposed is the one Rodas insists he already completed and is not challenging. The district court’s order is also not an appealable “final decision[].” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That’s because the order neither ends the litigation nor meets the strict criteria for rulings deemed final under the collateral order doctrine. See Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009); see also GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, 146 S. Ct. 774 (2026). As the Supreme Court recently explained, the “collateral-order doctrine . . . is narrow, stringent, and of modest scope.” GEO Group, 146 S. Ct. at 781 (cleaned up). The Court has traditionally explained that the doctrine allows immediate appeal only of “decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (cleaned up). More recently, in the context of requests for review of pretrial orders to dismiss, the Court has clarified that this doctrine turns largely on “whether the defendant has asserted a defense to liability or instead an immunity from suit.” GEO Group, 146 S. Ct. at 781. But cf. id. at 782 n.1 (noting “one category of cases [that] exis