United States v. North American Coal Exchange

Fourth Circuit

United States v. North American Coal Exchange

676 F.2d 99, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20408

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1982

Docket81-5228

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 676 F.2d 99 (United States v. North American Coal Exchange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. North American Coal Exchange, 676 F.2d 99, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20408 (4th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief 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 Di-Bella 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.

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

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief 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 Di-Bella 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 F.2d 99, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-north-american-coal-exchange-ca4-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack