U.S. v. North American Coal Exchange, 81-5228
| Decision Date | 05 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-5228,81-5228 |
| Citation | 676 F.2d 99 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. NORTH AMERICAN COAL EXCHANGE, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Carl A. Parise, West Mufflin, Pa. (Gerald R. Robbins, Robbins & Werdig, P. C., Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.
Carolyn L. Gaines, Washington, D. C. (J. Alan Johnson, U. S. Atty., Paul J. Brysh, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, ERVIN, Circuit Judge, and KAUFMAN, * Chief District Judge.
Larry Morris and North American Coal Exchange, Inc., a corporation owned solely by Morris, moved pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) for the return of property seized from the offices of North American under a search warrant executed by postal inspectors. They also sought an injunction to restrain the government from using the seized evidence at any future hearing or trial. From denial of their motion, they appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
Orders denying a pretrial motion to suppress evidence are interlocutory and nonappealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 82 S.Ct. 654, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962) it was held that a preindictment motion is also nonappealable if it is in effect a motion to suppress evidence. Movants' prayer for injunctive relief makes it clear that their motion was in substance a motion to suppress evidence. It matters not that Larry Morris was not under indictment when the motion was filed since he was subsequently indicted in another district, nor that North American has never been indicted. See Parrish v. United States, 376 F.2d 601 (4 Cir. 1967). Although Parrish arose where a husband had been indicted prior to appeal but his wife had not, we held that the identity of interest between them was such that the wife's interest would be fully presented, considered and determined by her husband's motion to suppress which he could file in the court of indictment. Similarly, we think that North American's interest would be protected by motions filed by its sole stockholder, sole director and sole executive officer.
Our dismissal of the appeal is, of course, without prejudice to motions to suppress in the court having jurisdiction of the criminal case.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
* Honorable Frank A. Kaufman, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Regional Consulting Services for Economic and Community Development, Inc.
...information, or indictment issued against the movant. The one Fourth Circuit case cited by the government, United States v. North American Coal Exchange, 676 F.2d 99 (4th Cir.1982), is not controlling since in that case an indictment had in fact issued against one of the appealing parties. ......
-
U.S. v. Modern Bookkeeping, Inc.
...712 F.2d 717, 719 (1st Cir. 1983), but is indicative of Modern Bookkeeping's goals in this litigation. United States v. North American Coal Exchange, 676 F.2d 99, 100 (4th. Cir. 1982). The Seventh Circuit has reached a similar conclusion on identical facts. In United States v. Sealed Search......
-
Kunjundzic v. United States
...Kunjundzic seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See United States v. North Am. Coal Exch., 676 F.2d 99, 100 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense ......
-
United States v. Walker
...Defendant's appeal is from an interlocutory, nonappealable order denying his motions to suppress. See United States v. North American Coal Exchange, 676 F.2d 99, 100 (4th Cir. 1982) ("Orders denying a pretrial motion to suppress evidence are interlocutory and nonappealable."). The Court is ......
-
Review Proceedings
...suppress evidence not appealable before judgment); In re Grand Jury, 635 F.3d 101, 104 (3d Cir. 2011) (same); U.S. v. N. Am. Coal Exch., 676 F.2d 99, 100 (4th Cir. 1982) (same); U.S. v. Davis, 1 F.3d 606, 607 (7th Cir. 1993) (same); U.S. v. Renzi, 651 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (same).......