FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30191
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00075-LRS-1
v.
ORDER*
JOSEPH JEFFEREY BRICE, AKA Joseph
Jeffrey Brice,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 6, 2013
Seattle, Washington
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Brice’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599, 606–07 (2009). Construing the
appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, the petition is DENIED because Brice
does not show that the district court clearly erred, see Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010), and because analysis of the factors to be
considered under Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654–55
(9th Cir. 1977), does not support the grant here of the extraordinary remedy of
mandamus relief.
The stay ordered by our court on July 11, 2012, of the district court’s order
of May 31, 2012, is VACATED, and the district court may tender the documents
involved in this appeal to the United States of America and its employees. Further,
the United States of America and its employees may review, discuss, disseminate,
and otherwise use the materials and the information contained therein. The district
court is encouraged in the interests of justice to provide Brice’s counsel with
copies of the materials simultaneously, under a protective order barring the
disclosure of the documents or information in them by Brice’s counsel to any
person other than his own client Brice or to any court having jurisdiction over such
matter, so that Brice’s counsel can argue to the district court that any of the seized
documents, or information within those documents, should not be considered by
the district court in sentencing.
It is so ORDERED.