United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, Lawrence F. Lester, Real Party in Interest

Ninth Circuit

United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, Lawrence F. Lester, Real Party in Interest

601 F.2d 379, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 6771

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 26, 1978·No. 78-2725·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Before CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

The Government has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus. However, the United States has an alternative means of review, that is, appeal from a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The challenge as to the district court’s failure to impose a special mandatory parole term possesses the necessary characteristics of “independence and completeness” that are required for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 without regard to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 406, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442 (1957); United States v. Busic, 592 F.2d 13, 25-26, (2d Cir. 1978).

Therefore, the petition is denied.

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

ORDER

Before CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

The Government has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus. However, the United States has an alternative means of review, that is, appeal from a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The challenge as to the district court’s failure to impose a special mandatory parole term possesses the necessary characteristics of “independence and completeness” that are required for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 without regard to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 406, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442 (1957); United States v. Busic, 592 F.2d 13, 25-26, (2d Cir. 1978).

Therefore, the petition is denied.

United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, Lawrence F. Lester, Real Party in Interest, 601 F.2d 379, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 6771 (9th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

601 F.2d 379 (United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, Lawrence F. Lester, Real Party in Interest) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United States v. John Paul Edmonson, United States of America v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, and John Paul Edmonson, and Real Party in Interest. United States of America v. Rosie Knoeb, Jorge Huerta, and Mary June Jimicum, United States of America v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, and Rosie Knoeb, Jorge Huerta, and Mary June Jimicum, and Real Parties in Interest

792 F.2d 1492 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Thomas William Mayo, Cross-Appellee

721 F.2d 1084 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)

United States of America, in Nos. 82-5103 82-5198 v. Francis D. Ferri A/K/A Rick Joseph Laverich, Kenneth R. Matthews, Kenneth R. Matthews, United States of America, in No. 82-3227 v. Honorable Rabe F. Marsh, United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Nominal Kenneth R. Matthews

686 F.2d 147 (Third Circuit, 1982)

United States v. Ferri

686 F.2d 147 (Third Circuit, 1982)

United States v. Sam Goody, Inc., and Samuel Stolon, in Re United States of America

675 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1982)

United States v. Robert L. Demier, Barbara Demier, in Re United States of America

671 F.2d 1200 (Eighth Circuit, 1982)

United States v. John J. Von Moos

660 F.2d 748 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)

United States v. Hetrick

627 F.2d 1007 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)

United States v. William Hetrick, United States of America v. United States District Court, District of Arizona, and William Hetrick, Real Party in Interest

627 F.2d 1007 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)

Opinion

Related