Court Opinion

ID: 2964308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:49.498752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:54.561450
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1843

                                        IN RE:

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                     Petitioner.
                                 ____________________

             ON PETITION FOR MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1866

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                                DWAYNE OWENS, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                ______________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________
                               ________________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
                                 ____________________

            Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney,  Andrea N. Ward, Gary  S.
            _______________                           ______________  ________
        Katzmann,  Jeffrey A. Locke and Allison D. Burroughs, Assistant United
        ________   ________________     ____________________
        States Attorneys, on brief for appellant and petitioner.
            Miriam Conrad on brief for appellee Dwayne Owens.
            _____________
            John M. Moscardelli on brief for appellee Keillen Smith.
            ___________________

            John Salsberg on brief for appellee Johnny Stephens.
            _____________
            Michael Liston on brief for appellee Coleman Essex.
            ______________
            Michael C. Bourbeau on brief for appellee Fernando Owens.
            ___________________
            Bernard Grossberg on brief for appellee Robert Owens.
            _________________
            James J. Coviello on brief for appellee Gordon Lowe.
            _________________
            Michael C. Andrews on brief for appellee Wayne Meadows.
            __________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Even  assuming, without deciding,  that we
                 __________

            have jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory  appeal, see
                                                                      ___

            18 U.S.C.    3731; United States v. Kane, 646  F.2d 4, 8 (1st
                               _____________    ____

            Cir. 1981), we would not reverse the district court's refusal

            to  review the  government's  ex parte  memorandum.   Such  a
                                          __ _____

            decision  is  committed to  the  discretion  of the  district

            court.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1); see also United States
                    ___                            ________ _____________

            v.  Levasseur,  826  F.2d  158,  159  (1st  Cir.  1987);  see
                _________                                             ___

            generally United States v. Napue, 834 F.2d 1311, 1317-19 (7th
            _________ _____________    _____

            Cir. 1987).  

                 The  record does not support the government's assertions

            that the  district court misunderstood its  authority in that

            regard  or nullified Rule 16(d)(1).  To the contrary, read as

            a whole, the  July 30 transcript indicates  that the district

            court  was aware  of  its discretion,  but  not persuaded  to

            exercise  it in the government's  favor, and did  not see the

            need  in  this  particular  case  to  review   the  ex  parte
                                                                __  _____

            memorandum.   Although  the district  court made  some rather

            broad comments about refusing  ex parte materials in general,
                                           __ _____

            it also gave the government a chance to  describe the type of

            information contained in the memorandum and weighed the value

            of  that type of information against the risk of prejudice to

            the  defendants,  all  in   the  context  of  addressing  the

            government's witness-safety concerns.

                                         -3-

                 Further, in these circumstances, mandamus  relief is not

            warranted.  See Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 6
                        ___ _______    _______________________________

            F.3d 856, 865 (1st Cir. 1993); Kane, 646 F.2d at 9.  
                                           ____

                 The order is affirmed, and the petition for mandamus  is
                              ________

            dismissed.  The limited stay granted by this court is lifted.
            _________                                             ______

            See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
            ___

                                         -4-