U.S. v. Gottlieb, 87-1473
| Decision Date | 04 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1473,87-1473 |
| Citation | 817 F.2d 475 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Avram L. GOTTLIEB, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Ronald S. Reed, Jr., Avram L. Gottlieb, Law Enforcement Center, St. Joseph, Mo., for appellant.
John R. Osgood, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
Avram L. Gottlieb appeals from the district court's 1 denial of his motion to withdraw his criminal plea of guilty. Gottlieb has not yet been sentenced. On our own motion we raise the issue of our jurisdiction. We hold that because Gottlieb has not yet been sentenced, the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea is a nonappealable interlocutory order.
This court has jurisdiction to review "all final decisions of the district courts." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982). "Adherence to this rule of finality has been particularly stringent in criminal prosecutions because 'the delays and disruptions attendant upon intermediate appeal,' which the rule is designed to avoid, 'are especially inimical to the effective and fair administration of the criminal law.' " Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 657, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2039, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977) (quoting DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 126, 82 S.Ct. 654, 657, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962)). A final decision under section 1291 is one that ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. E.g., In re Berkley & Co., 629 F.2d 548, 550-51 (8th Cir.1980); Gialde v. Time, Inc., 480 F.2d 1295, 1299 (8th Cir.1973).
In Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74 (8th Cir.1966), this court considered whether appellate jurisdiction to challenge the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea existed when an appeal was filed after sentencing. We held that the timing of the appeal was proper, id. at 77, and we suggested that if the appeal had been filed before sentencing, it would have been improper because "the denial of the motion to * * * withdraw a plea is appealable when it is the final action of the court on the subject." Id.; cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d) House Judiciary Committee Notes (sentencing is the point at which conviction is final for purposes of appeal).
The court's order denying Gottlieb's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is not a final decision because it does not end the litigation. The court still must sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Sanchez, 96-646.
...The Court having found that a grant of leave to file an interlocutory appeal would be improper at this time, see United States v. Gottlieb, 817 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1987) (stating that the proper time to challenge an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is after sentencing ......
-
In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative
...or criminal acts, the policy exclusion for such conduct did not apply), aff'd, 963 F.2d 385 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Gottlieb, 817 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1987) (orders regarding a guilty plea are not final decisions until after sentencing); Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565, 5......
-
U.S. v. Douglas
...166, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937)); Miller v. Aderhold, 288 U.S. 206, 210-11, 53 S.Ct. 325, 325-26, 77 L.Ed. 702 (1933); United States v. Gottlieb, 817 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1987) (orders regarding a guilty plea are not final decisions until after sentencing); Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565......
-
U.S. v. Clark
...been premature. See Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989); United States v. Gottlieb, 817 F.2d 475 (8th Cir.1987).Similarly, while it is true that the March 2 notice of appeal was premature insofar as Clark's motion to correct an illega......