Jay Frank, David Moule, Moule & Frank, Lawyers, Witnesses-Appellants v. United States

101 F.3d 705 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jay FRANK, David Moule, Moule & Frank, Lawyers, Witnesses-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 96-35802. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 7, 1996. * Decided Nov. 13, 1996. Before: CANBY, RYMER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jay Frank, David Moule, and their law partnership, Moule & Frank, Lawyers, appeal the district court's orders denying their motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum and adjudging them in civil contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 * We do not agree with Frank and Moule that the grand jury must limit its inquiry to whether the Estergard income was reported on the law firm's 1994 income tax return. "Where ... a subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds [under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) ], the motion to quash must be denied…