Filed: Mar. 24, 2008
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2017
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-2772 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Jacen Lile Bridges, * * Appellant. * _ * Appeals from the United No. 07-2775 States District Court for the _ Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * v. * * Katrina Elizabeth Griffin, also known * as Katrina Sartor, * * Appellant. * _ Submitted: March 13, 2008 Filed: March 24, 2008 _ Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judg
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-2772 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Jacen Lile Bridges, * * Appellant. * _ * Appeals from the United No. 07-2775 States District Court for the _ Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * v. * * Katrina Elizabeth Griffin, also known * as Katrina Sartor, * * Appellant. * _ Submitted: March 13, 2008 Filed: March 24, 2008 _ Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judge..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2772
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
*
v. *
*
Jacen Lile Bridges, *
*
Appellant. *
___________ *
Appeals from the United
No. 07-2775 States District Court for the
___________ Eastern District of Missouri.
United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee, *
*
v. *
*
Katrina Elizabeth Griffin, also known *
as Katrina Sartor, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: March 13, 2008
Filed: March 24, 2008
___________
Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
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. ยง 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.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-