U.S. v. Ford
Citation | 961 F.2d 150 |
Decision Date | 05 March 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-50209,91-50209 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce FORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Henry W. Harris, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Michael E. Lasater, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before: HUG and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM, Senior District Judge. **
Following the district court's decision dismissing the first indictment, Ford was reindicted. He then pled guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) as charged in the subsequent indictment. Under the terms of the guilty plea, Ford agreed not to appeal his conviction under the second indictment. Ford appeals only from the district court's order dismissing, without prejudice, the first indictment. He claims that the district court abused its discretion granting the order. We have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
In United States v. Mehrmanesh, 652 F.2d 766 (9th Cir.1981), we held that the district court's order denying a motion to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74) is not appealable as a final judgment. Id. at 768. The same conclusion applies to an order dismissing, without prejudice, an indictment under the speedy trial provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IADA") (18 U.S.C.A.App. § 9(1) (Supp.1989)). First, in Mehrmanesh, as here, the consequence of the district court's decision is to subject the defendant to trial. Second, the language of § 3162(a)(1) of the Speedy Trial Act is virtually identical to the speedy trial provision of the IADA.
We therefore extend our holding in Mehrmanesh to the present case and hold that the district court's order dismissing Ford's indictment is not appealable. 1 Cf. United States v. Kurt, 945 F.2d 248, 251-52 (9th Cir.1991) ( ). Ford's appeal is DISMISSED.
* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4.
** Robert F. Peckham, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
1 In doing so we follow similar holdings in other circuits. See United States v. Holub, 944 F.2d 441, 442 (8th Cir.1991) ( ); United States v. Jones, 887 F.2d 492, 493 n. 2 (4th Cir.1989) cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1081, 110 S.Ct. 1137, 107 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
USA v. Cornelius
...States v. Bratcher, 833 F.2d 69, 72 (6th Cir.1987); United States v. Holub, 944 F.2d 441, 442 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Ford, 961 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam); United States v. Tsosie, 966 F.2d 1357, 1361-62 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Kelley, 849 F.2d 1395, 1397 (......
-
U.S. v. Kuper, 07-1916.
...an indictment without prejudice has held such an order is not final and appealable under § 1291. See, e.g., United States v. Ford, 961 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (dismissal of indictment is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291); United States v. Tsosie,......
-
State v. Moore, 20020305.
...decision" and therefore is not appealable. United States v. Holub, 944 F.2d 441, 442 (8th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Ford, 961 F.2d 150, 151 n. 1 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Jones, 887 F.2d 492, 493 n. 2 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Kelley, 849 F.2d 1395, 1396 (11th Cir.1......
-
US v. Saravia, Crim. No. 94-21-P-C.
...(1992) (holding that dismissal without prejudice under Speedy Trial Act is not final decision so as to be appealable); United States v. Ford, 961 F.2d 150 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that dismissal of indictment without prejudice under speedy trial provision of Interstate Agreement on Detainers......