Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to assume interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over petitioner's Fifth Amendment grand-jury-indictment-clause and statute-of-limitations claims under the collateral-order-doctrine

QUESTION PRESENTED WHETHER THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO ASSUME INTERLOCUTORY APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER’S FIFTH AMENDMENT GRAND JURY INDICTMENT CLAUSE AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLAIMS UNDER THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE. OR STATED DIFFERENTLY: | WHETHER PETITIONER HAS “A RIGHT NOT TO BE TRIED” IN THE PERTINENT SENSE OF MIDLAND ASPHALT CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 489 U.S. 794, 802 (1989) WORTHY OF PRETRIAL PROTECTION WHERE THE GOVERNMENT OPENLY INTENDS TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER’S GUILT AT TRIAL ON FEDERAL OFFENSES IT DID INDICT BY PROVING A FEDERAL OFFENSE IT FAILED TO INDICT AND ON WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN. |