Whether the district court erred in dismissing the indictment against the defendant

No question identified. : cl a OF ba Ds sen be! hi /} d Cours Cour, prre dl 4 dou en cea Clea ., 1 Ulpbor fo Ojsmiss_jadethaenf» Aafed Pfyeil 2, 207? fl Ons ke frmeble Offences Sabch State for ‘oferta 3. oes tbe Ta ybviee iT M) LB Eurdence aad 4, e, petal 4 St C ¢ bin Cab oA “ tha brand (7 Qrecé, here bei der he ache at: Ce fecrive ? : (Gree gmp hes Cans Unde fu _p Sheep See baat aad Diisen ~Ke cq Lbs juror. 2 ‘ Did bep ble Maersbll WM. fevia “Sti mouf O Su nnf.2g the heev AR jit _ef he ho 012.6 Ager vole a_ Lies -€. : Coushbte Tan pering a al Exrdince ? 24 Did Dis ich bbforusy _prejudew Ls pth frou howtry ble 7] Dre. LE, p ALE 240, f oer Vi Le, hs beec: beflforinry 9 abhs. 3] Mid hs (ovr Cou, OVV 2.0 1 ews pea he i pee 40. CO nto hon | pegauds fo tle Mbwly dlisteveabl toldenve ? q.} Dic Condy Court ovved in easing potter 440-(0 mobos a wie, GQ betwiag ? will his fetlehead emul ard _addves. a hk a dupn bodavit P 27, bd shee Verges gla be ; peek bul, aro! vlheon Hite dns ttc /2) Did thu Gur Cove e ved no Wee (hie Cova ue OF fhe ledtifigt ratlae Yaa dhsunwa-g te jndibfeanf entity 2 3) Was Hffw lap tokte ine Leechs wlan be Aid nok OL, fr_# holes Pela bleating aatl retils tb friel Uashion to jOissmits ladithneat F : [4 Did Dish liar Or pet ” he YO ee a) hereon mo ve. o Ob fava e Po. Axe 1 eceder" UY (YZ, ¢ : ecter Caw tac, Gad vidlahios of Publec office lawl) in order to lecreve & pay from “Of 1b.00@ to 4 ($2 350.00? All pavties appear pn Capt of the Case pa the Cover a f Nelited Cases! | Pople _y. flobet b2_HV td 91 Appellele Duisrin of He Sepreme ai Sz tad a al Lepe nacenl LAtKEO {4, rd) V3," Lo pl . Codon, 277 4.0. 2d (053° gveme Cowt bh fsliw Yor fig le b, Qs lots Vet? fd aoe bien ’ Q Lllag vUnited Ste re; SO VS: 359: Supene Cove of fe ; United Shites Araved Jtuvarg tb-'7 (956: Afavth 5, 1456, pole Le @ € 1Z ; M: 2 SPS Lov of Foo pea. of Z PEL nuvavd it, 1903 froved: Fehrvary lO _1ge Decided: People v. PBeyGevson 11 Y.td 346 Co wt of Appeal of Mew York May 4, 46¢ Argued: Tove % 1966 Decided’ Heople uv. Howell, 3 WV 2d G72 CG ot Sipps ( pur Your Oc fobre 1957. Araved: Febrvavy 26 195% Pebcided Feople uv. Sexton, 87 MY. W4S Court of Appee two York Ctavary 24 1901 fed fpehrva 907, Decided Carted States (ha pfo 497 FZ Li United a fe Low of lf ppet for Has A ath Ci it, Uloy 10 1@74. nt bed ote 5S . Fed H, ‘ole tid, Ei hii: sdf ste Z ovrl oOo Apaeak v the Fwst Grivif Sepfenber (0/4 Areed jJwem 1931 peadd, , ed S1a fe " ke UA CO S@ t 132g biked & bird OF Ab pez oi he Mth Ci-cort Novem her 2%, 1977 | Myers _u. Unked Stakes 1479 vs. Leeis 1240, Adaveh 27, 1975 Vaid st vu: Eskepa UY) gzd 92 Uj ibed Shebes Cov 6 Aypeal a tbh Sead Cwitvil December | fate, Argued: Detemnbe 24 (472 De cided, : sf ppeale of Mew tok Peigued Abn lS 145 7 May 24, 1453 decded. Moy iP : ans, $k AV, 2d ju, Cow 2 4a Neo OC eur Yor Movember 4, 1982 Peed: Decembey 4, 1982 Petided, cope y. 0; hathele sy NY. td 734 Quet of Aapealt of How Yok vary i£ 1482 Avgyed Febrvacy 23,1482 ppaded L, Al thei as, NU 2d 73h Cour; 6 Appvalc Of } > Yor Me 719 fegted, Joly & 1491 decided. Heat A ¢ fA ZS LY. Zd 14b wwt o Ay psale ot AKhw Yar | Taawavy 14, 197 Proved April $147) decide | Peaple keazmown 2 WY td 322, Coun, App 2a Ms Yor LL JOWWE G8) Pu ved Rehwevry 26 198/ de ced, Vew York Chair borne 29 WY. td 980 Court of Hopsals of wz York Tanya L, 1472, Brgued: Taney 11 sare beyded Navi 30 (491 Aeaued: tay 7. 198), Decided. | Peopl, foster 1% NY 2d (9) Court oy Appeals of New Yor — Tovar 19, 4467 Submitted, Febvvary 73, 1967 Obctded. Hol fv. U,bd state LIF US. [F, LUE: £3] Gribfer 7 ey Z. “A, Court a a4 6 Fehorvary 4 1400 Aroved, Apwil |, 1460 bested. feople_v._tarper MSM ZI VW: Covet of Appeal of Mew Ver Unay 7 ANGIS: Kepved: Tone [t, 4S Deitled. Pecple A Ty, vote @ ‘ed S07 Court Gg, Appeals of skew Yor Argued Moutinbur 29 (486: Fouvavy 10, 14 Lecidag), People v. the les Zed Ve 300 Covet of App. ale of Yor Ocfolur 22, 1992; hyqued; decembu ty (aye Oecdaa po pty , Lee, S% Ve od Yal