## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Maria Ann Dior on three counts: smuggling merchandise (18 U.S.C. § 545), attempting to introduce imported merchandise by false statements (18 U.S.C. § 542), and transporting stolen merchandise worth $5,000 or more in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 2314).
- At trial in Seattle, the government presented evidence that Dior transported four fur coats bearing price tags denominated in Canadian dollars.
- The government offered no evidence of the exchange rate between Canadian and U.S. dollars at the relevant time.
- The jury acquitted Dior on the § 542 count and convicted her on the § 545 and § 2314 counts.
- Post-verdict, Dior moved for a judgment of acquittal (Rule 29(c)) and, alternatively, a new trial (Rule 33).
- The district court granted a new trial on the § 545 count based on an erroneous jury instruction proposed by the government.
- The district court entered a judgment of acquittal on the § 2314 count, holding the evidence failed to prove the $5,000 jurisdictional value element in U.S. dollars.
- The government appealed both rulings and alternatively sought mandamus relief as to the new-trial order.

## Issues

1. Whether a post-verdict order granting a new trial in a criminal case is immediately appealable as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. Whether mandamus is available to review the district court’s discretionary new-trial order before retrial.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the stolen goods had a value of at least $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 when the only proof of value was in Canadian dollars without exchange-rate evidence.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the government’s appeal from the new-trial order for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory and not a final decision under § 1291.
- The court denied the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of the new-trial order.
- The court affirmed the district court’s judgment of acquittal on the § 2314 count due to legally insufficient proof of the $5,000 value element.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 generally extends only to “final decisions”; a criminal order granting a new trial after a guilty verdict is interlocutory and not immediately appealable before retrial.
- Strong finality concerns in criminal cases support limiting interlocutory review and avoiding piecemeal appeals.
- Mandamus is extraordinary relief and is not a substitute for an appeal; it is unavailable absent a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate alternative remedy.
- For 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the $5,000 threshold is an element and jurisdictional requirement; when value evidence is denominated in foreign currency, the prosecution must present competent proof (such as an exchange rate) permitting the jury to determine U.S.-dollar value beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the government could not immediately appeal a post-verdict new-trial order under § 1291 and could not use mandamus to obtain premature review, and it affirmed acquittal on a § 2314 count where the government failed to prove the $5,000 element in U.S. dollars when its valuation evidence was solely in Canadian currency without exchange-rate proof.


United States v. Dior, 671 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1982)