Case Name: Paul Santo ORLANDO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-11-28
Citations: 387 F.2d 348
Docket Number: No. 20249
Parties: Paul Santo ORLANDO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 387
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
Paul Santo ORLANDO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20249.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 28, 1967.
Paul Santo Orlando, pro. per.
Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty, Michael L. Morehouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before POPE, HAMLEY, and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
Our decision in this case affirming the judgment of conviction became final on June 29, 1967 (Orlando v. United States, 9 Cir., 377 F.2d 667). Orlando desired to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and we therefore stayed the issuance of our mandate. On August 4, 1967 the government filed a motion in which it requested that we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand the cause to the District Court with directions to dismiss the indictment. On September 9, 1967, presumably in reliance upon the government's motion, Orlando abandoned his petition for certiorari. The government's motion is accompanied by a letter to the United States Attorney from the Attorney Gen eral in which it is stated that the institution of the prosecution of Orlando which resulted in his conviction is contrary to the policy of the department, which is that several offenses arising out of a single transaction should be alleged and tried together, and should not be made the basis of multiple prosecutions. This policy was the basis of comparable motions which were granted by the Supreme Court in Petite v. United States, 1960, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490, and in Marakar v. United States, 1962, 370 U.S. 723, 82 S.Ct. 1573, 8 L.Ed.2d 803. We agree with the government that this is also an appropriate case in which to take similar action. It is therefore
Ordered that the judgment of this court in this ease and the judgment of conviction are vacated and that the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the indictment.