UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
SANFORD W. BROWN, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an order transferring a criminal case back to a different district is an interlocutory order and not a final decision, thus not immediately appealable.
The defendant was indicted for failure to file income tax returns and sought transfer of the case. After the case was transferred for plea and disposi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of Courts Of Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In an indictment returned in the District Court in the Middle District of North Carolina, the defendant, Sanford W. Brown, was charged with failure to file income tax returns. Defendant moved that court, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., for transfer of the case to the Western District, the district of his residence, which motion was denied. He then moved for transfer of the case to the Western District under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for plea of guilty and disposition, which motion was granted and the case was accordingly transferred.
Prior to arraignment and plea in the District Court for the Western District, defendant filed with the clerk of that court a written motion to dismiss the indictment. The court, having been advised of the filing of the motion to dismiss, entered an order transferring the case back to the Middle District. From this order defendant seeks to prosecute this appeal and the Government objects on the ground that the order is interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides that the Courts of Appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the District Courts. The final order in a criminal case is the sentence imposed by the court after a determination of guilt by trial or plea. In Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-213, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937), the court stated:
“ * * * Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment. * * * In criminal cases, as well as civil, the judgment is final for the purpose of appeal ‘when it terminates the litigation * * * on the merits’ and ‘leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.’ St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28 [2 S.Ct. 6, 27 L.Ed. 638]; United States v. Pile, 130 U.S. 280, 283 [9 S.Ct. 523, 32 L.Ed. 904]; Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 429 [30 S.Ct. 539, 54 L.Ed. 821].”
See also Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 76 S.Ct. 912, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. The Prescon Corp. & VSL Corp., 695 F.2d 1236 (10th Cir. 1982)
-
United States v. Garber, 413 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1969)
-
United States v. Olin DeWitte Henson, 358 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1937)
- Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513 (U.S. 1956)
- ST. Louis v. S. Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1883)
- Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1910)
- United States v. Pile, 130 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1889)