enactment, § 1605(a)(7) continues to apply to this case. Therefore, the two issues raised by Sudan remain relevant despite the recent changes to the state sponsor of terrorism exception. We resolve these issues in the discussion that follows and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. II. Analysis United States Courts of Appeal do not ordinarily have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, that is, appeals from orders that do not conclusively end the litigation, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, such as the denial of a motion to dismiss. But when such a denial subjects a foreign sovereign to jurisdiction, the order is “subject to interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, 216 F.3d 29, 31 (D.C.Cir. 2000); see Simon, at 1191 (<HOLDING>). We review the district court’s denial of
holding that the rule of unanimity does not apply to 28 usc  1442 holding that statute mandating an extension of time in which a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case may file a certificate of qualified expert circumstances was procedural and therefore applied retroactively to cases pending when the law was enacted holding that under 28 usc  1292b the appellate courts may review only matters in the order not all issues in the case holding that the ndaa  1083af enacted january 28 2008 which prohibits the taking of appeals not conclusively ending the litigation unless taken pursuant to section 1292b of title 28 does not apply to  1605a7 cases pending on appeal when the statute was enacted and continuing under  1605a7 holding that a magistrate judge acting pursuant to   636b1  has no authority to issue a dispositive ruling on a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory appeal under 28 usc  1292b  2000 