Proceedings Before Federal Grand Jury for Dist. of Nevada, In re, No. 79-4276

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore WALLACE and POOLE; POOLE
Citation643 F.2d 641
PartiesIn re PROCEEDINGS BEFORE the FEDERAL GRAND JURY FOR the DISTRICT OF NEVADA. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph CONFORTE and Sally Conforte, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date23 April 1981
Docket NumberNo. 79-4276

Page 641

643 F.2d 641
In re PROCEEDINGS BEFORE the FEDERAL GRAND JURY FOR the
DISTRICT OF NEVADA.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph CONFORTE and Sally Conforte, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 79-4276.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 12, 1981.
Decided April 23, 1981.

Page 642

Stanley H. Brown, Reno, Nev., on brief; Harvey D. Tack, Hochman, Salkin & DeRoy, Beverly Hills, Cal., argued, for defendants-appellants.

Gilbert E. Andrews, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief; William A. Whitledge, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for plaintiff-appellee.

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

Before WALLACE and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, * District Judge.

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

Joseph and Sally Conforte appeal an order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada permitting disclosure to the Internal Revenue Service of evidence produced before a federal grand jury during its investigation of them.

On April 5, 1977, a federal grand jury returned a ten-count indictment against the Confortes. The indictment charged that they had attempted to evade payment of federal withholding taxes by misrepresenting the amount of the wages paid to some employees and by failing to file employer's quarterly federal tax returns. Each was convicted on four counts; their convictions were upheld on appeal to this court. United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1980).

On March 21, 1979, the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada filed an ex parte motion in the district court requesting disclosure to the Internal Revenue Service of the evidence produced before the grand jury that indicted the Confortes. In an order entered that day, the district court directed that "all transcripts of all witnesses and all documents, records and exhibits" that were submitted to the grand jury "be made available and disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service and its attorneys for use, including disclosure for discovery purposes and in conjunction with any Court proceeding, in connection with pending civil litigation before the United States Tax Court, ... collecting civil tax liabilities, and in making any additional civil determinations where required by law."

Without seeking to intervene before the district court or to petition that court for any sort of relief from the order, the Confortes filed notice of appeal from the order on March 26, 1979. They now seek reversal of the district court's disclosure order and ask that the matter be remanded to the district court. Their appeal raises issues of mootness and finality, and of when disclosure to government agencies is appropriate. We decline to discuss these issues because we conclude that the Confortes do not have standing to appeal. 1

Page 643

The general rule is well settled: persons who were not parties of record before the district court may not appeal that court's order or judgment except in extraordinary circumstances....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Chagra, Nos. 82-1263
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 14, 1983
    ...or which result in a plea later withdrawn. 3 Accord Washoe Tribe v. Greenley, 674 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Conforte, 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981); Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir.1981); Union of Professional Airmen v. Alaska Aeronautical......
  • Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 26124-83.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • September 11, 1984
    ...did not seek to intervene in the District Court proceeding. In re Proceedings before the Federal Grand Jury for the District of Nevada, 643 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir. 1981). Instead, five days after the Rule 6(e) Order was entered, the taxpayer sought to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth ......
  • Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, MARTIN-TRIGON
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 9, 1983
    ...of the case weighed against allowing non-parties to appeal, see Washoe Tribe v. Greenley, 674 F.2d at 818; United States v. Conforte, 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981), the circumstances of this case strongly favor the trustees. After the district court ordered the trustees to respond to Mar......
  • E.E.O.C. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., Nos. 88-15672
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1990
    ...cert. denied sub nom., DeLusignan v. Gould, 479 U.S. 818, 107 S.Ct. 77, 93 L.Ed.2d 33 (1986); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Conforte), 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981). A nonparty must, of course, also have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation discernible from the record before......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • U.S. v. Chagra, Nos. 82-1263
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 14, 1983
    ...or which result in a plea later withdrawn. 3 Accord Washoe Tribe v. Greenley, 674 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Conforte, 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981); Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir.1981); Union of Professional Airmen v. Alaska Aeronautical......
  • Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 26124-83.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • September 11, 1984
    ...did not seek to intervene in the District Court proceeding. In re Proceedings before the Federal Grand Jury for the District of Nevada, 643 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir. 1981). Instead, five days after the Rule 6(e) Order was entered, the taxpayer sought to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth ......
  • Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, MARTIN-TRIGON
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 9, 1983
    ...of the case weighed against allowing non-parties to appeal, see Washoe Tribe v. Greenley, 674 F.2d at 818; United States v. Conforte, 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981), the circumstances of this case strongly favor the trustees. After the district court ordered the trustees to respond to Mar......
  • E.E.O.C. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., Nos. 88-15672
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1990
    ...cert. denied sub nom., DeLusignan v. Gould, 479 U.S. 818, 107 S.Ct. 77, 93 L.Ed.2d 33 (1986); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Conforte), 643 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1981). A nonparty must, of course, also have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation discernible from the record before......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT