Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04161/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Claud R. Koerber
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUD R. KOERBER, a/k/a Rick 

Koerber, 

 Defendant - Appellant,

No. 16-4161

(D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00302-JNP-1)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on the Government/Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss 

Appeal and the Defendant/Appellant’s Renewed Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Upon 

consideration, Defendant’s motion is granted. The Clerk shall file the proposed surreply 

attached to the motion.

Defendant seeks review of the district court’s August 25, 2016 order, denying his 

motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice and dismissing the case without 

prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, 

response, reply, and surreply, the motion to dismiss is granted. “[T]he dismissal of an 

indictment under the Speedy Trial Act is not a final decision either under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 or the collateral order doctrine.” United States v. Tsosie, 966 F.2d 1357, 1361 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 27, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4161 Document: 01019711722 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 1 
2

(10th Cir. 1992). Nor is the decision appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). See 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (providing that courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals 

from interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving 

injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions”). 

To the extent that Defendant requests mandamus relief, that request is denied. 

Defendant has not established that he will be damaged in a way not correctable on appeal. 

Clyma v. Sunoco, Inc., 594 F.3d 777, 782 (10th Cir. 2010).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-4161 Document: 01019711722 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 2