United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Frank Romano and Thomas Romano, Cross-Appellees

755 F.2d 1401, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28501
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 5, 1985
Docket81-5710
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 755 F.2d 1401 (United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Frank Romano and Thomas Romano, Cross-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Frank Romano and Thomas Romano, Cross-Appellees, 755 F.2d 1401, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28501 (11th Cir. 1985).

Opinions

BY THE COURT:

On July 19, 1984, this Court reversed the convictions of Thomas Romano and Frank Romano. United States v. Romano, 736 F.2d 1432 (11th Cir.1984). The reversal of the convictions necessarily reversed the district court’s criminal forfeiture orders as to each defendant. While the decision as to Frank Romano was pending before this Court on the Government’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, Frank Romano died on January 3, 1985.

When a defendant dies pending direct appeal of his criminal conviction, the Court will dismiss the appeal as moot with respect to that defendant and remand the case to the district court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment. United States v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 508, 510 n. 1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976, 103 S.Ct. 313, 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982); United States v. Holt, 650 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Pauline, 625 F.2d 684 (5th Cir.1980).

Although we have not decided whether an appeal involving a criminal forfeiture order would be mooted upon the death of the defendant, in this case the Government has chosen not to contest the matter. Therefore, the opinion of this Court, insofar as it relates to Frank Romano, is VACATED. Frank Romano’s case is REMANDED to the district court so that it may vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment as against him.

The Clerk is instructed to issue immediately the mandate on the decision of this Court as to Thomas Romano, which decision is unaffected by this order.

All pending motions and petitions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Jon Craig Nelson
884 F.3d 1103 (Eleventh Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Robert Jenning
599 F.3d 1241 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Robert Jennings
Eleventh Circuit, 2010
Hartman v. Comm'r
2008 T.C. Memo. 124 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
United States v. Michael A. Koblan, Jr.
478 F.3d 1324 (Eleventh Circuit, 2007)
Williams v. State
648 So. 2d 313 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
United States v. Cobb
905 F.2d 784 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Robert Dibernardo and Theodore Rothstein
880 F.2d 1216 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)
Perry v. Leeke
488 U.S. 272 (Supreme Court, 1989)
United States v. Schumann ex rel. Estate of Schumann
861 F.2d 1234 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Parker v. State
530 So. 2d 1084 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Horsey v. State
747 S.W.2d 748 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
John M. Mudd v. United States
798 F.2d 1509 (D.C. Circuit, 1986)
State v. Mebane
511 A.2d 359 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
755 F.2d 1401, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-cross-appellant-v-frank-romano-and-thomas-ca11-1985.