Introduction

United States v. Nicholas Craig Woozencroft is a per curiam decision of the Eleventh Circuit issued on March 12, 2025. The defendant, Nicholas Craig Woozencroft, was indicted on two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) for purchasing firearms by means of a false statement. A jury convicted him on Count Two and deadlocked on Count One, leading the district court to declare a mistrial as to that count. Woozencroft was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment on Count Two and appealed. The crux of the appeal was whether the sentence on a single count constitutes a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when another count remains unresolved. The Eleventh Circuit held it does not, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s unanimous opinion reaffirmed the “final judgment rule”: appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases extends only to final decisions—that is, to sentences that dispose of all counts on an indictment. Relying on binding precedent (United States v. Myrie; United States v. Wilson; In re United States), the panel concluded that because Count One awaited retrial, the written judgment on Count Two alone was not final and appealable. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Gulledge (11th Cir. 1984): Established that appeals lie only from “final decisions” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• United States v. Flanagan (1984): Confirmed in criminal cases the final judgment rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence.
• United States v. Wilson (5th Cir. 1971): Held that when a multi-count conviction results in sentencing on only some counts, no final judgment has been entered unless the other counts are “otherwise disposed of.”
• In re United States (11th Cir. 1990): Emphasized that a criminal judgment becomes final only after sentencing on all counts of conviction or dismissal of the remaining counts.
• United States v. Myrie (11th Cir. 2015): Directly controlled the outcome here by dismissing an appeal where the district court had granted a new trial on one count while upholding convictions and sentences on others, deeming the overall order non-final.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit applied the “prior-panel precedent rule,” which binds a three-judge panel to decisions of earlier Eleventh (or Fifth, pre-1981) Circuit panels. Although Woozencroft argued that, on a “clean slate,” the sentence on Count Two was final as to that count, the court acknowledged the fairness concern but held itself bound by Myrie and its antecedents. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a district court decision is final only when “all counts on which the defendant is convicted” have been resolved. Because Count One remains pending after the mistrial, the sentence on Count Two cannot stand alone as a final appealable order.

Impact

This decision reinforces the strict application of the final judgment rule in multi-count criminal cases. Defendants sentenced on some counts must await disposition—by retrial, acquittal, or dismissal—of all counts before appealing. Practitioners must factor this into pre-trial and post-trial strategy: where a hung jury or partial acquittal occurs, immediate appeal from partial sentencing is foreclosed. The ruling also underscores a tension between procedural uniformity and individual fairness, as defendants may “languish in jail” without an immediate right of appeal on the counts that have been disposed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final Judgment Rule (28 U.S.C. § 1291)

In both civil and criminal contexts, appeals may be taken only from final decisions—those that dispose of all issues and parties such that the case is effectively closed at the trial court level.

Multi-Count Indictment

An indictment charging a defendant with multiple offenses. Sentencing on one count does not render the case final if other counts remain pending.

Mistrial

A trial that is not successfully concluded, often due to a hung jury. A mistrial leaves the charge unresolved and allows the government to retry the defendant on that count.

Prior-Panel Precedent Rule

A doctrine requiring a panel of the Eleventh Circuit to follow legal principles set down by earlier Eleventh Circuit panels (or Fifth Circuit panels handed down before October 1, 1981).

Conclusion

United States v. Woozencroft reaffirms the final judgment rule in the criminal appellate context: a defendant may not appeal a sentence on one count of a multi-count indictment while another count remains unresolved. Although the decision raises fairness concerns—imposing delay and uncertainty on defendants partially sentenced—it underscores the binding effect of circuit precedent and the strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moving forward, defense counsel and prosecutors must carefully monitor multi-count cases to anticipate how partial verdicts and retrials will affect appellate strategy.