United States v. Bridges

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Bridges

270 F. App'x 464

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2008

DocketNos. 07-2772, 07-2775

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 F. App'x 464 (United States v. Bridges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bridges, 270 F. App'x 464 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jacen Lile Bridges and Katrina Griffin were indicted in October 2004 for conspiring to distribute more than a kilogram of heroin. They eventually moved to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act, and the district court¹ granted their motions in July 2007 and dismissed the indictments against them without prejudice. Bridges and Griffin appeal, arguing that the dismissals should have been with prejudice. The United States contends that their appeals should be dismissed because the district court order dismissing their indictment is not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because these appeals are neither from a final judgment nor fit within the collateral order exception, see United States v. Holub, 944 F.2d 441 (8th Cir.1991), they are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jacen Lile Bridges and Katrina Griffin were indicted in October 2004 for conspiring to distribute more than a kilogram of heroin. They eventually moved to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act, and the district court¹ granted their motions in July 2007 and dismissed the indictments against them without prejudice. Bridges and Griffin appeal, arguing that the dismissals should have been with prejudice. The United States contends that their appeals should be dismissed because the district court order dismissing their indictment is not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because these appeals are neither from a final judgment nor fit within the collateral order exception, see United States v. Holub, 944 F.2d 441 (8th Cir.1991), they are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 F. App'x 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bridges-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack