655 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1980), 80-1548, United States v. Linton

Docket Nº:80-1548 to 80-1555 and 80-1564.
Citation:655 F.2d 930
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lee LINTON, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sorkis J. WEBBE, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred L. KENNEDY, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert C. TINDELL, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. ALADDIN HOTEL CORP., Appellant. UNITED STATES
Case Date:December 01, 1980
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 930

655 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1980)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Lee LINTON, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Sorkis J. WEBBE, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Fred L. KENNEDY, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Robert C. TINDELL, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

ALADDIN HOTEL CORP., Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Dennis PIOTROWSKI, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

DEL WEBB CORPORATION, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

James C. COMER, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Sorkis J. WEBBE, Appellant.

Nos. 80-1548 to 80-1555 and 80-1564.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 1, 1980

Argued and Submitted Nov. 10, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1981.

Page 931

Oscar B. Goodman, Goodman, Oshins, Brown & Singer, Las Vegas, Nev., for Tindell.

James M. Glover, Shellow & Shellow, Milwaukee, Wis., for Aladdin.

Samuel S. Lionel, Las Vegas, Nev., for Del Webb.

Geoffrey A. Anderson, Las Vegas Strike Force, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before GOODWIN and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and HARDY, [*] District Judge.

Page 932

PER CURIAM.

These interlocutory appeals were filed under Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). Appellants complain about the conduct of the prosecutor and the use of perjured testimony before the grand jury. This court recently held that motions alleging "grand jury irregularities" are not appealable. United States v. Garner, 632 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1980). Appellants have demonstrated no reason to distinguish this case from Garner. Thus, we dismiss these appeals alleging prosecutorial misconduct and the use of perjured testimony before the grand jury for lack of jurisdiction.

Moreover, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Tindell's vindictive prosecution claim. 1 The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Tindell did not present sufficient facts to prevail on this issue.

The vindictive prosecution appeal in reality is nothing more than the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 2 The proposition...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP