TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Avram L. Gottlieb

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Avram L. GOTTLIEB, Appellant

United States v. Gottlieb, 817 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1987)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 4, 1987
Docket
No. 87-1473
Judges
Gibson, Henley
Citations
817 F.2d 4751987 U.S. App. LEXIS 5700

Opinion — Gibson

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Avram L. Gottlieb appeals from the district court’s 1

denial of his motion to withdraw his criminal plea of guilty. Gottlieb has not yet been sentenced. On our own motion we raise the issue of our jurisdiction. We hold that because Gottlieb has not yet been sentenced, the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea is a nonappealable interlocutory order.

This court has jurisdiction to review “all final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982). “Adherence to this rule of finality has been particularly stringent in criminal prosecutions because ‘the delays and disruptions attendant upon intermediate appeal,’ which the rule is designed to avoid, ‘are especially inimical to the effective and fair administration of the criminal law.’ ”

Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 657 , 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2039 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977) (quoting DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 126 , 82 S.Ct. 654, 657 , 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962)). A final decision under section 1291 is one that ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.

E.g., In re Berkley & Co., 629 F.2d 548 , 550-51 (8th Cir.1980);

Gialde v. Time, Inc., 480 F.2d 1295, 1299 (8th Cir.1973).

In Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74 (8th Cir.1966), this court considered whether appellate jurisdiction to challenge the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea existed when an appeal was filed after sentencing. We held that the timing of the appeal was proper, id.

at 77 , and we suggested that if the appeal had been filed before sentencing, it would have been improper because “the denial of the motion to * * * withdraw a plea is appealable when it is the final action of the court on the subject.”

Id.; cf.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d) House Judiciary Committee Notes (sentencing is the point at which conviction is final for purposes of appeal).

The court’s order denying Gottlieb’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is not a final decision because it does not end the litigation. The court still must sentence Gottlieb and enter judgment. At that time, the court will have nothing left to do but execute the judgment. Gottlieb can then appeal from the district court’s final decision and argue that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was wrongfully denied.

Having no jurisdictional authority to address the merits of this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

1

. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 11991: 11992: 11999: 12005: 12016: 119902026peak 1990 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative391 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D. Tex. 2005)
  2. United States v. Francis Allan Clark917 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1990)
  3. United States v. Wesley Everett Douglas974 F.2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1992)
  4. United States v. Sanchez.38 F. Supp. 2d 355 (D.N.J. 1999)
  5. United States v. Marrie Miller952 F.2d 1397 (6th Cir. 1991)
  6. United States v. Pedro Morales-Bravo650 F. App'x 530 (9th Cir. 2016)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Pedro Morales-Bravo650 F. App'x 530 (9th Cir. 2016)
  2. In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative391 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D. Tex. 2005)
  3. United States v. Sanchez.38 F. Supp. 2d 355 (D.N.J. 1999)
  4. United States v. Wesley Everett Douglas974 F.2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1992)
  5. United States v. Marrie Miller952 F.2d 1397 (6th Cir. 1991)
  6. United States v. Francis Allan Clark917 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) 1,853
DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121 (1962) 548
Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74 (8th Cir. 1966) 47
Tom J. Gialde v. Time, Inc., Time, Inc. v. Honorable John W. Oliver, Judge of the United States Dist. Court for the Western Dist. of Mo., 480 F.2d 1295 (8th Cir. 1973) 35

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list