United States v. Western Titanium, Inc.

MEMORANDUM **

Western Titanium and its Pi'esident, Daniel Schroeder, have filed both an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging an order entered by the district court on Apxúl 14, 2009. The distx'ict court’s order required Western Titanium and Schroeder to submit a more detailed privilege log in suppox't of their request, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedui'e 41(g), that the government return documents seized from Western Titanium’s offices following execution of a April 14, 2008 search warrant. Because we lack jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and because we find no clear ex-ror on the part of the district court to justify issuance of a writ of mandamus, we dismiss the appeal and deny the mandamus petition.

Under the so-called “final judgment” rule, appellate jurisdiction is not normally vested xxntil a ei'iminal defendant has been convicted and sentenced. See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-213 , 58 S.Ct. 164, 166 , 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). Here, because trial has not yet occurred, Western Titanium and Schroeder can appeal from the district court’s April 15, 2009, interlocutory decision only if that decision 1)…