United States v. Honorable James O. Ellison

722 F.2d 595, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19052
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided May 21, 1982·No. 82-1602·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Court, sitting en banc, having heard oral argument of counsel, orders as follows:

1. The petitioner’s emergency application for writ of mandamus and appeal is hereby denied.

2. The petitioner’s emergency motion for stay of the district court’s order of dismissal of Counts 1 through 15 of the Indictment is denied.

3. The order of the panel entered in the captioned cause on May 17, 1982, 684 F.2d 664, staying all further proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in case No. 81-CR-97, United States of America v. Robert B. Sutton, et al., is hereby vacated.

The Court is of the view that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy and that to grant the relief prayed for would violate *596 the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges, dissent.

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

United States v. Honorable James O. Ellison, 722 F.2d 595, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19052 (10th Cir. 1982).

722 F.2d 595 (United States v. Honorable James O. Ellison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Adan Gil Miranda
425 F.3d 953 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Arnulfo-Sanchez
71 F. App'x 35 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. John P. Blount
34 F.3d 865 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Rafael A. Urena
27 F.3d 1487 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Sutton
795 F.2d 1040 (Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, 1986)