Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05107/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 2 ~ 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

IN RE: ) 

) 

GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS TO FIRST NATIONAL ) 

BANK OF TULSA; FOURTH NATIONAL BANK OF ) 

TULSA; and ALL OTHER GRAND JURY ) 

SUBPOENAS. ) 

) 

) 

) 

FREEMAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, an ) 

unincorporated association; VERNON o. ) 

HOLLAND, Trustee; JAMES D. MAULDIN, ) 

Trustee, Individually and on behalf ) 

of the associates of Freeman Education ) 

Association, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

v. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: TONY M. ) 

GRAHAM, United States Attorney: ) 

KENNETH SNOKE, Assistant United States ) 

Attorney; JOHN THOMAS, Special ) 

Agent IRS; GARY BENUZZI, Special ) 

Agent IRS; MARTIN SEARS, ) 

Special Agent IRS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 89-5107 

(D.C. No. 88-GJ-10-C) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5107 Document: 010110064841 Date Filed: 10/24/1990 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the district court denying 

their motions for a temporary restraining order, for a preliminary 

injunction, to quash grand jury subpoenas, to suppress subpoenaed 

documents, and to enjoin the United States Attorney from 

conducting an unauthorized grand jury investigation. In 1988, the 

grand jury issued subpoenas to the First National Bank of Tulsa 

and the Fourth National Bank of Tulsa for financial records of the 

Freeman Education Association not produced pursuant to earlier 

upheld subpoenas, see First Nat'l Bank of Tulsa v. United States 

Dep't of Justice, 865 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs 

objected to those subpoenas _and alleged misuse of other subpoenaed 

information by filing the motions listed above. After the 

district court denied the motions and plaintiffs' subsequent 

motion for rehearing, they appealed. Thereafter, without 

obtaining the subpoenaed information, the grand jury returned 

indictments against plaintiffs Vernon O. Holland and James D.D. 

Mauldin, trustees of the Freeman Education Association. 

Defendants moved to dismiss this appeal as moot due to 

issuance of the indictments. Although the grand jury rendered its 

indictments without reliance on the subpoenaed financial records, 

plaintiffs contend they did not seek only a motion to quash the 

subpoenas. Rather, they contend their requests for equitable 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5107 Document: 010110064841 Date Filed: 10/24/1990 Page: 2 
relief · in the form of civil contempt for violation of 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) and injunctive relief for violation of 12 

u.s.c. § 3420 preclude a determination of mootness of the appeal. 

We hold the appeal, to the extent it concerns the subpoenas 

issued most recently to the two banks, is moot. By issuing an 

indictment without relying on the subpoenaed documents, the grand 

jury foreclosed enforcement of its subpoenas. Cf. In re Grand 

Jury, Apr., 1979, 604 F.2d 69, 72 (10th Cir. 1979)(appeal not ripe 

for review). Without access to the documents, there cannot be any 

improper Rule 6(e)(2) disclosure. Furthermore, plaintiffs have 

made no showing that the grand jury intends further investigation 

following indictment. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 632 F.2d 

1033, 1041 (3d Cir. 1980). Because we are not convinced there is 

a reasonable expectation any alleged violations will recur or that 

the indictment has not completely eradicated the effects of the 

alleged violation, see Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 

631 (1979), defendants' motion to dismiss the case as moot is 

granted in part. 1 

To the extent plaintiffs sought injunctive relief for 

previous violations of Rule 6(e), the appeal is not moot. Cf. In 

re Grand Jury Investigation No. 78-184, 642 F.2d 1184, 1187-88 

(9th Cir. 1981)(case not moot when grand jury materials 

disclosed), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Sells Eng'g, Inc., 463 

U.S. 418 (1983). After examining the briefs and sealed record on 

1 Although the record is not dispositive, we assume, due to the 

delay of time, that the grand jury is dissolved and will not 

subsequently try to enforce the subpoenas. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5107 Document: 010110064841 Date Filed: 10/24/1990 Page: 3 
' appeal, however, we conclude the district court correctly 

determined plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of Rule 6(e). 

The appeal in part is DISMISSED. The district court's order 

in part is VACATED as moot. This action is REMANDED to the 

district court to dismiss in part its order as moot. See Great W. 

Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92 (1979); United States v. 

Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950); Baker v. Bray, 701 F.2d 

119, 122 (10th Cir. 1983). Defendant's motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED in part. For all other purposes the judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5107 Document: 010110064841 Date Filed: 10/24/1990 Page: 4