Whether the district court had jurisdiction to order transportation for medical testing in a clemency case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The U.S. District Court, after finding that certain medical testing was reasonably necessary for Mr. Tisius’s clemency case, issued a sealed order requiring the respondent warden to transport Mr. Tisius for the testing. The state appealed, and the Court of Appeals first rejected Mr. Tisius’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and then found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order. To accomplish such, the court failed to give effect to Congress’s express statutory language in 18 U.S.C. § 3599 and this Court’s application of § 3599 in Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018), Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), and McFarland, 512 U.S. 849. This case thus presents the following questions: 1. Whether extending the narrowly construed collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. 337 U.S. 541 (1949), to all district court transportation orders is justified? 2. Whether courts are required to construe 18 U.S.C. § 3599 in a manner consistent with this Court’s pronouncements in Ayestas and McFarland? 3. Whether a federal circuit court of appeals has the authority to implicitly amend 18 U.S.C. § 3599 by failing to give effect to every clause or word of the statute? i