878 F.2d 331 - United States v. Moore — 878 F.2d 331

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2005

6 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Ernest Bernard Moore, Pro. Per., Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

¶2Rudolfo Orjales, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before BROWNING, THOMPSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Ernest Moore appeals a district court order denying his motion to quash a writ of execution. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

¶6On January 23, 1987, Moore pleaded guilty to two counts of fraudulently using credit cards, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). The district court sentenced Moore to eight years in custody and five years of probation. The court also ordered Moore to pay restitution in the amount of $62,864.82 as directed by the Probation Department. The final judgment was entered May 12, 1987.

¶7The United States Attorney’s office then obtained a writ of execution and a memorandum of garnishment to collect on the court-ordered restitution. On March 13, 1989, Moore filed a motion to discharge or quash the writ. The district court denied the motion on April 20,1989. Moore filed a timely notice of appeal from that denial.

¶8In Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Products Co., 191 F.2d 197, 199 (9th Cir.1951), this court held that the denial of a motion to quash a writ of execution is not an appeal-able order. The court noted that the order did not finally dispose of an entire controversy between the parties. Id.In reaching this decision, we relied on Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U.S. 580, 13 S.Ct. 934, 37 L.Ed. 856 (1893), in which the United States Supreme Court held “the [rjefusal to quash a writ is not a final judgment.” Id. at 585, 13 S.Ct. at 936. Under Loeber and Steccone, this court lacks jurisdiction over Moore’s appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

¶9APPEAL DISMISSED.