USCA1 Opinion
October 4, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1843
IN RE:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
No. 96-1866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
v.
DWAYNE OWENS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
______________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
________________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, Andrea N. Ward, Gary S.
_______________ ______________ ________
Katzmann, Jeffrey A. Locke and Allison D. Burroughs, Assistant United
________ ________________ ____________________
States Attorneys, on brief for appellant and petitioner.
Miriam Conrad on brief for appellee Dwayne Owens.
_____________
John M. Moscardelli on brief for appellee Keillen Smith.
___________________
John Salsberg on brief for appellee Johnny Stephens.
_____________
Michael Liston on brief for appellee Coleman Essex.
______________
Michael C. Bourbeau on brief for appellee Fernando Owens.
___________________
Bernard Grossberg on brief for appellee Robert Owens.
_________________
James J. Coviello on brief for appellee Gordon Lowe.
_________________
Michael C. Andrews on brief for appellee Wayne Meadows.
__________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Even assuming, without deciding, that we
__________
have jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal, see
___
18 U.S.C. 3731; United States v. Kane, 646 F.2d 4, 8 (1st
_____________ ____
Cir. 1981), we would not reverse the district court's refusal
to review the government's ex parte memorandum. Such a
__ _____
decision is committed to the discretion of the district
court. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1); see also United States
___ ________ _____________
v. Levasseur, 826 F.2d 158, 159 (1st Cir. 1987); see
_________ ___
generally United States v. Napue, 834 F.2d 1311, 1317-19 (7th
_________ _____________ _____
Cir. 1987).
The record does not support the government's assertions
that the district court misunderstood its authority in that
regard or nullified Rule 16(d)(1). To the contrary, read as
a whole, the July 30 transcript indicates that the district
court was aware of its discretion, but not persuaded to
exercise it in the government's favor, and did not see the
need in this particular case to review the ex parte
__ _____
memorandum. Although the district court made some rather
broad comments about refusing ex parte materials in general,
__ _____
it also gave the government a chance to describe the type of
information contained in the memorandum and weighed the value
of that type of information against the risk of prejudice to
the defendants, all in the context of addressing the
government's witness-safety concerns.
-3-
Further, in these circumstances, mandamus relief is not
warranted. See Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 6
___ _______ _______________________________
F.3d 856, 865 (1st Cir. 1993); Kane, 646 F.2d at 9.
____
The order is affirmed, and the petition for mandamus is
________
dismissed. The limited stay granted by this court is lifted.
_________ ______
See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
___
-4-
