745 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1984), 84-3791, In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Manges)
|Citation:||745 F.2d 1250|
|Party Name:||In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS (Clinton MANGES). Clinton MANGES, Intervenor-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||October 23, 1984|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted Sept. 6, 1984.
Gerald H. Goldstein, Goldstein, Goldstein, & Hilley, San Antonio, Tex., for intervenor-appellant.
Thomas C. Wales, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before WRIGHT, PREGERSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
This case presents an issue of first impression in this circuit. Appellant Clinton Manges contends that his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires the district court to quash a documentary subpoena directed not to Manges, but to the bookkeeper of his sole proprietorship. The district court disagreed. On the facts presented, we affirm.
In its investigation of possible criminal conduct by certain bank loan officers and loan recipients, a federal grand jury directed a subpoena duces tecum to Nada Lee Robertson, a bookkeeper with the Duval County Ranch Company, a Texas corporation wholly owned by appellant Clinton
Manges. In addition to her duties for the corporation, Robertson also maintained books and records for Manges' sole proprietorship. 1
The subpoena directed Robertson to produce all the records in her custody relating to the sole proprietorship. Manges filed a motion to intervene and motion to quash the subpoena. The district court granted Manges' motion to intervene.
In arguing the motion to quash before the district court, the government "limited the scope of the subpoena to documents retained in Ms. Robertson's office and in which she made entries or to which she had access in the performance of her job." Tr. of Hearing, at 63. Finding that Robertson's "custody and ... possession of the documents at issue" insured that "the enforcement of the subpoena duces tecum as limited by the government will not result in any compulsion directed at intervenor," id. at 67-68, the district court denied Manges' motion to quash. 2
I. Timeliness of Appeal
The government urges us to dismiss this appeal as untimely. It contends that Manges' appeal, of which notice was filed 27 days...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP