Source: http://openjurist.org/88/f3d/856
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 16:44:14
Document Index: 751080421

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2119', '§ 0', '§ 0', '§ 0', '§ 0', '§ 5032', '§ 510']

88 F3d 856 United States v. Angelo D | OpenJurist
88 F. 3d 856 - United States v. Angelo D HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series 88 F.3d
88 F3d 856 United States v. Angelo D 88 F.3d 856
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.ANGELO D., a male juvenile, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 96-2010.
On November 1, 1995, the government charged appellant with knowingly and intentionally taking a motor vehicle, while possessing a firearm, from another by force, and violence and intimidation that resulted in serious bodily injury to the victim, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(2), 2 and 924(c)(1). On the same day, the government filed a certification stating there was "a substantial federal interest in the case to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction." The certification was signed by First Assistant United States Attorney Robert J. Gorence "for John J. Kelly, United States Attorney." On November 7, 1995, the government filed a motion to proceed against appellant as an adult. This motion was signed by Louis E. Valencia, Assistant United States Attorney. On December 26, 1995, appellant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the United States Attorney had failed to sign the certification. The district court held a hearing on the above issues in which he denied appellant's motion to dismiss and granted the government's motion to proceed against the appellant as an adult. This appeal followed.
* Before reaching the merits of the case we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Although an issue of first impression in the Tenth Circuit, every circuit that has addressed the issue has held an order transferring a juvenile to be tried as an adult is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.1 The collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), provides limited exceptions to the final judgment rule for interlocutory appeals where the district court's order: "(1) conclusively determine[s] the disputed question, (2) resolve[s] an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3)[is] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 1498, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2458, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The first two factors of the collateral order doctrine are clearly present. The transfer order conclusively determines whether the defendant is to be tried as an adult or a juvenile and resolves an important issue separate from whether the juvenile is innocent or guilty of the current charges. The closer question is whether the transfer order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act's purpose is to "remove juveniles from the ordinary criminal process in order to avoid the stigma of a prior criminal conviction and to encourage treatment and rehabilitation." United States v. Brian N., 900 F.2d 218, 220 (10th Cir.1990). As our colleagues on the Second Circuit stated:
In its brief, the government "acknowledges that the Courts of Appeals have uniformly held that a juvenile defendant may appeal a transfer order under the collateral order doctrine." The government alleges, however, that the collateral order doctrine does not apply in this case because appellant is appealing based on the procedural requirements of the transfer order rather than on the merits of the transfer order itself. We are unpersuaded by this distinction. The justifications for allowing the immediate appeal of transfer orders remain the same regardless of whether the appeal is based on an alleged procedural or substantive deficiency. The government fails to provide us with any authority showing a distinction between appeals of transfer orders based on procedural as opposed to substantive claims. On the contrary, we found several opinions from our sister circuits addressing interlocutory appeals alleging procedural deficiencies with transfer orders and certifications. See United States v. Three Male Juveniles, 49 F.3d 1058, 1062 (5th Cir.1995) (appellant challenged certification because current Attorney General had not delegated her authority to United States Attorney who had signed the order); United States v. Juvenile Male, 923 F.2d 614, 620 (8th Cir.1991) (court found district court lacked jurisdiction over transfer proceeding because government had not complied with certain jurisdictional prerequisites); United States v. Doe, 871 F.2d 1248, 1257 (5th Cir.) (finding no procedural defect in motion to transfer signed by an Assistant United States Attorney), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 917, 110 S.Ct. 276, 107 L.Ed.2d 257 (1989). Because a juvenile is not any less prejudiced by a criminal proceeding based on an improper jurisdictional basis than on one based on an improper substantive basis we find this distinction to be without merit.
Finally, the government provides us with a copy of a Memorandum dated July 3, 1995, and signed by United States Attorney John Kelly which states: "Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 0.131, I designate First Assistant United States Attorney Robert J. Gorence to serve as Acting United States Attorney in my absence from the office with full power to sign all necessary documents and papers on my behalf, including indictments." The government states, and appellant does not dispute, that United States Attorney Kelly was absent from the office on the day Mr. Gorence signed the certification. In United States v. Smith, 532 F.2d 158, 160 (10th Cir.1976), we recognized the United States Attorney's power "to designate any assistant U.S. Attorney to carry out his functions during his absence including the signing of any necessary papers." The record shows United States Attorney Kelly expressly delegated his authority to First Assistant United States Attorney Gorence who signed the certification for Mr. Kelly while he was away from the office.
Rather than disputing the above facts, Appellant argues § 0.131 does not apply to juvenile cases because where § 0.57 specifically mentions the Juvenile Delinquency Act, § 0.131 does not. He provides no support for this contention from either the case law or the statute. In fact, the only cases we can find addressing this issue have held to the contrary. These cases have reasoned because 18 U.S.C. § 5032 does not address the Attorney General's ability to delegate her authority, 28 U.S.C. § 510's broad power of delegation is applicable. Three Male Juveniles, 49 F.3d at 1062-63; Doe, 871 F.2d at 1256; United States v. Bent, 702 F.2d 210, 213 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Cuomo, 525 F.2d 1285, 1287-88 (5th Cir.1976). We reject appellant's claims that the nature of the statute requires us to apply a more narrow interpretation to the Attorney General's delegation powers. Where a statute is clear and unambiguous our inquiry is complete. Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 481 U.S. 454, 461, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 1859-60, 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987). We believe the above statutes clearly show the Attorney General may delegate her power to the Assistant Attorney General who may in turn delegate his power to the United States Attorneys who may delegate their power to the Assistant United States Attorneys. Our reading of the applicable statutes together indicates a somewhat lengthy chain of delegation which was appropriately followed in this instance.
The same delegatory authority applies to this section as did to the certification issue addressed above; however, in this instance there is not an express delegation from United States Attorney Kelly authorizing Assistant United States Attorney Valencia to act on his behalf. Several other circuits addressing this issue have refused to let such a technicality or ministerial act defeat jurisdiction. United States v. Parker, 956 F.2d 169, 170 (8th Cir.1992) (court declined to stand on technicality and affirms even though certification was not done by the appropriate person); Doe, 871 F.2d at 1257 (court found the Assistant United States Attorney had merely performed a ministerial act in signing the motion to transfer). Other circuits have refused to find reversible error absent a showing of prejudice by the juvenile. Parker, 956 F.2d at 170; United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1370 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 190, 133 L.Ed.2d 127 (1995); United States v. Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253, 1260 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1112, 112 S.Ct. 1217, 117 L.Ed.2d 455 (1992); cf. In re Application of the President's Comm'n on Organized Crime, 763 F.2d 1191, 1200 (11th Cir.1985).
United States v. J.J.K., 76 F.3d 870, 871-72 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Doe, 49 F.3d 859, 865 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d 841, 844 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. A.R., 38 F.3d 699, 701 (3d Cir.1994); United States v. Bilbo, 19 F.3d 912, 914-15 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Gerald N., 900 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1990); In re Sealed Case, 893 F.2d 363, 368 (D.C.Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 851 F.2d 706, 708 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. A.W.J., 804 F.2d 492, 492-93 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. C.G., 736 F.2d 1474, 1476-77 (11th Cir.1984)
The government argues the appellant waived his right to challenge the motion to transfer by not raising it before the district court. Although generally we will not address an issue raised for the first time on appeal, we make exceptions in instances such as this which challenge the district court's jurisdiction. Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 721 (10th Cir.1993)