U.S. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 09 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5912,80-5912 |
| Citation | 685 F.2d 123 |
| Parties | 82-2 USTC P 9557 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph T. MILLER and Joan Miller, Defendants. In re Subpoena Duces Tecum of James M. RUSS, Appellant. . Unit B * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James M. Russ, pro se, Bruce S. Rogow, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for appellant.
Donald E. Christopher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Chief, R. Russell Mather, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Appellate Section, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before HILL, FAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Before issuance of the mandate in the instant case, the parties have brought to the attention of the court facts which render the case moot.
The court notes that the pretrial subpoena duces tecum at issue in this case was relevant only to the pending criminal tax fraud proceedings against the Millers, that these criminal proceedings have now been finalized, and that the instant case has therefore become moot. Accordingly, the previous opinion of this court published at 660 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1981), is vacated; the judgment of the district court holding appellant Russ in contempt is VACATED; and the case is REMANDED with instructions that the district court quash the subpoena and dismiss the case. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
* Former Fifth Circuit case, Section 9(1) of Public Law 96-452-October 14, 1980.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke v. U.S.
...moot after the opinion issued, but before the time limit for seeking en banc ran or the mandate issued, and in United States v. Miller, 685 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), a panel vacated its opinion on learning "[b]efore issuance of the mandate" that the case had become moot. In addition,......
-
Kave, In re
...105 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed.2d 962 (1985); United States v. Miller, 660 F.2d 563, 566-67 (5th Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 685 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1982); Cramer, Back from the Brink: Boyd's Private Papers Protection and the Sole Proprietor's Business Records, 21 Am.Bus.L.J. 369 (1984).27 I......
-
Oklahoma Radio Associates v. F.D.I.C., 89-6434
...and issuance of an opinion, the Fifth Circuit has summarily vacated previously published panel opinions. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 685 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir.1982); United States v. Caraway, 483 F.2d 215, 216 (5th The Sixth Circuit Without addressing the policy concerns involved i......
-
USA v. KRANE
...proceedings rendered the appeal from a contempt citation issued for failure to comply with a subpoena moot); United States v. Miller, 685 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (holding that the conclusion of criminal trial proceedings rendered an appeal concerning a pre-trial subpoena m......
-
Consequences of Mootness on Appeal. The factors the courts consider relevant in determining when the order dismissing an appeal should also vacate the previous judgment.
...the Fifth Circuit—permit vacatur even though the case became moot prior to the issuance of the mandate. See United States v. Miller , 685 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (ordering vacatur when mootness arose after decision and before mandate); United States v. Carraway , 483 F.2d 215 ......