Carmelia Urasaki v. United States District Court, Central District of California, United States of America, Real Party in Interest
Opinion
Opinion
PUBLISHED ORDER
“In passing upon an immunity application, the [district] court is confined to an examination of the application and the documents accompanying it for the purpose only of deciding whether or not the application meets the procedural and substantive requirements of the authorizing statute. (In re Russo (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 369 ; cf. Ullmann v. United States (1956) 350 U.S. 422 [434], 76 S.Ct. 497 , 100 L.Ed. 511 .)” Bursey v. United States (9th Cir. 1972), 466 F.2d 1059, 1073 .
The immunity application in this case, together with its supporting documents, prima, facie complies with the statutory authority pursuant to which immunity was sought. The application contains the necessary request by the United States Attorney and approval by an Assistant Attorney General, who in this instance was designated by 28 C.F. R. § 0.175(a) as the person having authority thus conferred. We judicially notice that Henry E. Petersen, whose name appears on the authorization letter, was the Assistant Attorney General then in charge of the Criminal Division.
Adversary procedure is- not a part of the legislative scheme in connection with the district court’s performance of its…