United States v. Jose Ernesto Moreno-Green, Joaquin Arturo Contreras, Oscar Lara Navarrete, Jose Ignacio Acosta-Medina, and Alejo Hernandez Dominguez

The government moves to dismiss these interlocutory criminal appeals for lack of jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1494 , 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 10, 1988, a federal grand jury in Arizona returned an indictment against Jose Ernesto Moreno-Green, Joaquin Arturo Contreras, Oscar Lara Navar-rete, Jose Ignacio Acosta-Medina, and Ale-jo Hernandez-Dominguez. The defendants were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On August 17, 1988, the defendants moved to dismiss the indictment alleging prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury. The district court denied the motion and the defendants filed timely notices of appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Basis for Interlocutory Jurisdiction

Defendants do not state the basis for our jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeals. If defendants base jurisdiction on our recently vacated decision in United States v. Benjamin, 812 F.2d 548 (9th Cir.1987), vacated, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1948 , 104 L.Ed.2d 418 (1989), then we clearly lack jurisdiction. See Midland Asphalt, 109 S.Ct. at…