DOJ-OGR-00019351.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page9 of 24 458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982) (per curiam); see also Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270 (noting “overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases” and that “exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare”’); United States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognizing that “‘undue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice,’ the common consequences of piecemeal appellate review, are ‘particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases’” (quoting Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962))). 11. There is a limited exception to this rule that permits immediate appeal from certain collateral orders. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)). To fall within the “small class” of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders, the decision must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12. The Supreme Court has made clear that the collateral order exception should be “interpreted . . . with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265); accord United DOJ-OGR-00019351