edge of an error, and thus could not have abandoned or intentionally relinquished a known right when no right existed at the time. The controlling law at the time of [Defendant’s] sentencing no longer holds due to subsequent Third Circuit and Supreme Court caselaw. That subsequent law established the right that [Defendant] now seeks to assert.” (Slip op. at 8.)Third Circuit Refuses to Review Interlocutory Motion to Suppress EvidenceUnited States v. Nocito (April 3, 2023), No. 20-2955http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202955p.pdf Unanimous decision: Restrepo (writing), McKee, and BibasBACKGROUNDThe Government charged Defendant with a long-running tax-avoidance scheme that involved hiding business income in shell companies and using that income to pay personal expenses. During its investigation, the Government received potentially privileged documents from Defendant’s CFO, an attorney, who cooperated with the investigation and voluntarily produced the documents. Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to force the Government return his “property” interest in the attorney-client privilege. The trial court denied the motion, holding that it was effectively an improper attempt to suppress the privileged document. Defendant appealed the denial of the motion while the remainder of the criminal proceedings were ongoing, arguing that the denial of a Rule 41(g) motion is an appealable final order.HOLDINGThe Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that, while Rule 41(g) motions can be appealable final orders, they are only final orders if they are truly distinct and unrelated to the ongoing criminal proceedings. Here, because the Court agreed that Defendant’s motion was, in fact, an attempt to suppress evidence — and thereby influence the course of his criminal case — rather than a mere attempt to return seized property, the District Court’s denial of his motion was not a final order. The Court therefore lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.KEY