USA v. ( 1996 )

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        October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-