Appealing § 3605 Transfers


March 18, 2024
By Bryan Lammon

In United States v. Sastrom, the First Circuit held that it could review a supervised-release order despite the transfer of a criminal defendant’s case to another, out-of-circuit district. The transfer in Sastrom was under 18 U.S.C. § 3605. And the First Circuit treated this transfer the same as those under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a): so long as the appeal comes before the transfer is docketed, appellate jurisdiction exists.

The Underlying Decision in Sastrom

Simplifying only a little bit, Sastrom stemmed from a criminal conviction in the District of Massachusetts. Before the defendant was convicted, he was subject to a civil-commitment order in Connecticut. So shortly before the defendant’s release from custody, the district court imposed a supervised-release condition that required the defendant to report to a hospital in Connecticut.

The defendant was subsequently released, and he reported to the Connecticut hospital. He also sought to appeal the district court’s supervised-release order to the First Circuit.

The § 3605 Transfer & Statutory Jurisdiction

But there was a problem. After he filed his notice of appeal, the District of Massachusetts transferred his case to the District of Connecticut under 18 U.S.C. § 3605. That provision authorizes a district court to “transfer jurisdiction over a probationer or person on supervised release to the district court for any other district to which the person is required to proceed as a condition of his probation or release.” The receiving court is then “authorized to exercise all powers over the probationer or releasee.”

This transfer created a potential jurisdictional hiccup. 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) provides that appeals from a district court must be taken “to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district.” Under § 1294(1), only the First Circuit has jurisdiction to review decisions from the District of Massachusetts. But after the transfer to the District of Connecticut, any appeal would go to the Second Circuit. And that court would not be able to review the Massachusetts district court’s decisions.

Treating Transfers Similarly

The First Circuit held that it could review the supervised-release order despite the transfer.

The court had reached the same conclusion in the context of transfers under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In the § 1404(a) context, the First Circuit had noted that (because of § 1294(1)) “the appellant’s right to appeal a pre-transfer interlocutory order could only be realized in the First Circuit.” (Quotation marks omitted.) And so long as “the relevant appeal was filed before the case was docketed by the transferee court, [the First Circuit] had already acquired appellate jurisdiction before the transfer was effective, and jurisdiction was not terminated by the subsequent transfer.” (Quotation marks omitted.)

The First Circuit saw no reason to treat transfers under § 3605 differently. The defendant’s “right to appeal the challenged order [could] be realized only by [the First Circuit’s] review, because the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) does not permit a Massachusetts district court order to be reviewed by a circuit not embracing the district.” And the First Circuit had acquired jurisdiction before the transfer was docketed in Connecticut.

United States v. Sastrom, 2024 WL 1130284 (1st Cir. Mar. 15, 2024), available at the First Circuit and Westlaw

Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.

Learn More Contact

Related Posts


The Fifth and Federal Circuits cannot agree on where appeals of Walker Process claims belong. These claims allege that someone violated the Sherman Act by fraudulently obtaining a patent. The Federal Circuit—which has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under the patent laws—thinks that these cases do not arise under the patent laws. So it transfers […]

Continue reading....

Recent Posts


In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.

Continue reading....

In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]

Continue reading....

I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]

Continue reading....

Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]

Continue reading....

Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.

Continue reading....