Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-03054/USCOURTS-caDC-98-03054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sealed Case

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

for the district of columbia circuit

Filed May 15, 1998

No. 98-3054

In Re: Sealed Case

On Motion of United States of America to Expedite

Before: Ginsburg, Randolph, and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: We dismiss this appeal from the district court's ruling that

appellant has not been given a grant of immunity by the United States, here 

acting

through the Office of Independent Counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. • 1291, the 

courts of

appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from "final decisions of the district 

courts . . .."

In criminal cases the final judgment rule "prohibits appellate review until 

after

conviction and imposition of sentence." Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United 

States, 489

U.S. 794, 798 (1989). Appellant has not been indicted, let alone tried and 

convicted.

Appellant has not refused to testify before the grand jury and, for that 

refusal, been held

in contempt of court. Nor is there any basis for treating this appeal under 

the narrow

exception of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

If appellant is ultimately indicted and convicted, and if it turns out 

that, contrary

to the district court's ruling, appellant had immunity from such prosecution, 

then

"[d]ismissal of the indictment is the proper sanction," United States v. 

MacDonald, 435

U.S. 850, 860 n.7 (1978). But the Supreme Court has held specifically that an

individual's claimed "right" not to be indicted because of an immunity deal 

does not

mean that the individual "can pursue interlocutory appeals" to establish that 

right. Id. Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 431 (1910), upon which the 

Supreme Court

relied in MacDonald, is directly on point: even transactional immunity 

conferred by

statute does not "give a right of review upon any other than final 

judgments." See

Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 270 (1984); United States v. 

Macchia, 41

F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 1994).

Appeal dismissed.

USCA Case #98-3054 Document #355660 Filed: 05/29/1998 Page 1 of 1