Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Elizabeth G. Austin v. United States of America, James E. Holshouser, United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, 8317_1 (1962)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 8317_1 Visitors: 39
Filed: Apr. 06, 1962
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 353 F.2d 512 66-2 USTC P 9592 Elizabeth G. AUSTIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, James E. Holshouser, United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, Appellees. No. 8317. United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. April 6, 1962. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit judges. PER CURIAM. 1 It appearing to this Court that the Supreme Court of the United States, in DiBella v. United States and United States v. Koenig, on March 19, 1962, 369
More

353 F.2d 512

66-2 USTC P 9592

Elizabeth G. AUSTIN, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, James E. Holshouser, United States
Attorney for the Middle District of North
Carolina, Appellees.

No. 8317.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

April 6, 1962.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

It appearing to this Court that the Supreme Court of the United States, in DiBella v. United States and United States v. Koenig, on March 19, 1962, 369 U.S. 121, 82 S. Ct. 654, 7 L. Ed. 2d 614, held interlocutory and unappealable an order of a District Court entered in a proceeding commenced prior to indictment for the purpose of suppression of evidence; and

2

It further appearing to this Court, by reason of the subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court above mentioned, that it was without appellate jurisdiction to review the order of the District Court declining to enjoin presentation of evidence to a grand jury;

3

Now, therefore, it is here ordered that the mandate of this Court issued on december 22, 1961 be, and the same hereby is, recalled, the judgment entered on November 21, 1961 is set aside, and the appeal is dismissed because the order of the District Court is interlocutory in nature and not appealable in advance of final judgment. This order is not intended to indicate that the District Court may not, in its discretion, hear the application for injunction prior to indictment, nor do we hereby intimate any opinion upon the merits of said application.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer