Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06061/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis A. Anthony
Appellee
William M. Baker
Appellee
Trung N. Duong
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 29, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TRUNG N. DUONG; WILLIAM M. 

BAKER; CURTI A. ANTHONY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TRUNG N. DUONG; WILLIAM M. 

BAKER; CURTIS A. ANTHONY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-6061

(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-00126-C-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

No. 16-6078

(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-00126-C-2)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the parties’ responses to this court’s 

order of March 21, 2016. Upon consideration thereof, this appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

Appellate Case: 16-6061 Document: 01019611587 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 Page: 1 
2

The government appeals an order of the district court denying its motion in limine 

seeking to prevent the defendants from raising any argument or offering evidence 

regarding lack of knowledge of the child’s age, that they mistook her age, or that they had 

any lack of awareness of her age. The district court denied the motion, concluding that, 

under the law governing the case, the government must show that the defendants were 

aware of or acted in reckless disregard that the victim was under 18.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the government may appeal the dismissal of an 

indictment and specific interlocutory orders not applicable here.. 

The government contends that the order being appealed is the functional 

equivalent of an order dismissing the indictment. This argument is without merit. After 

the challenged order was issued, the court indicated that it intended to dismiss the 

indictment without prejudice, but allowed the defendants to file objections. After 

considering those objections, the court dismissed the indictment without prejudice. 

Clearly, then, the order being appealed was not the same as an order dismissing the 

indictment.

The government also argues that this court has jurisdiction under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(2) (“A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, a sentence, or 

order – but before the entry of judgment or order – is treated as filed on the date of and 

after the entry.”). This argument too is without merit.

In interpreting Rule 4(b)(2), the courts may look at the way Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) 

has been interpreted by the courts. See United States v. Mendoza, 698 F.3d 1303, 1309 

n.3 (10th Cir. 2012) (interpretations made of the civil rules apply to criminal cases as 

Appellate Case: 16-6061 Document: 01019611587 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 Page: 2 
3

well where the “operative language” is “identical,” as it is in Rules 4(a)(2) and 4(b)(2). 

The Supreme Court limited Rule 4(a)(2)’s application, holding that it does not cover “a 

clearly interlocutory decision,” but rather only those decisions “that would be appealable 

if immediately followed by entry of judgment.” FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors 

Mortgage Insurance Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991) (emphasis in the original). See also 

Constein v. United States, 628 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 2010). Here ,as noted above, 

the district court order being appealed is not final.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The government’s motion to consolidate 

this appeal with no. 16-6078 is denied. The dismissal of appeal no. 16-6061 does not 

affect appeal no. 16-6078, and the government’s opening brief and appendix remain due 

on May 16, 2016 in no. 16-6078. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 16-6061 Document: 01019611587 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 Page: 3