is not considered ‘final’ for purposes of appeal.” State v. Ahasteen, 1998-NMCA-158, ¶ 11, 126 N.M. 238, 968 P.2d 328. The rationale is that, after remand, the appellant has another opportunity to obtain review in the district court and then in this Court. See id. However, this rationale does not apply in a case such as this one where dismissal of Defendant’s appeal for lack of finality would in effect deny the appeal on its merits. Id. ¶ 12. {14} Assuming that Defendant is correct and that he is entitled to a de novo hearing in district court — an issue addressed in the following section of this opinion — then the order remanding for a new hearing is in error, and Defendant should not be subject to another revocation hearing at the magistrate court level. See generally id. ¶¶ 12-20 (<HOLDING>); cf. Collado v. N.M. Motor Vehicle Div.,
holding that a remand order entered by a magistrate judge was beyond his statutory authority and concluding that review was proper because the court of appeals was not reviewing the merits of the remand order itself holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that the district courts referral of a motion to suppress to a magistrate did not violate article iii so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court and explaining that congress was alert to art ill values concerning the vesting of decisionmaking power in magistrates accordingly congress made clear that the district court has plenary discretion whether to authorize a magistrate to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the magistrate acts subsidiary to and only in aid of the district court thereafter the entire process takes place under the district courts total control and jurisdiction holding that the district courts order refusing to exercise jurisdiction and remanding to the magistrate court for trial was sufficiently final for purposes of appeal and then determining that the remand was in error