Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04520/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04520-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Plaintiff
Adam Chung-Shiaing Wang
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The District Court does retain jurisdiction over timely

motions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and over

collateral aspects of a case, such as a motion for sanctions under

FRCP 11. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4); Willy v.

Coastal Corp. et al., 503 U.S. 131, 137-138 (1992). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM CHUNG-SHIAING WANG, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-4520 SC

ORDER DISMISSING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE 

Plaintiff United States of America has filed a motion for an

order to show cause why Defendant Adam Chung-Shiaing Wang should

not be held in contempt for failing to comply this Court's October

20, 2005 Order to surrender any indicia of citizenship to the

Attorney General. Defendant Wang has filed a notice of appeal

from this Order and the Order of Judgment. 

"The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of

jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court

of appeals and divests the district court of its control over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Trulis et al.

v. Barton et al., 107 F.3d 685, 694-695 (9th Cir. 1997), quoting

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

(1982).1

//

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 44 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this motion

because it is directly related to those aspects of the case

involved in the appeal. 

When a court lacks jurisdiction, the "only function remaining

to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the

cause." Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868). 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the motion for want of

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 44 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2