CHARLIE WILLIAM TURNER, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-5067

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1990

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

   Memorandum For The United States In Opposition

   Petitioner contends that the court of appeals erred in reversing an
order granting his post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal.

   1. On September 22, 1987, petitioner and two others were indicted
by a federal grand jury in the Western District of Virginia.  They
were charged with conspiracy to violate the mail fraud statute, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1341;  and 13 counts of medicare and
medicaid fraud, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396.  The jury
found petitioner guilty on 10 counts.  On July 5, 1988, the district
court granted petitioner's post-trial motion for a judgment of
acquittal, after concluding that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support the verdict.  Pet. App. A.  The court of
appeals reversed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to convict
petitioner of conspiracy under Count 1 and as an aider and abettor
under Counts 7 and 11.  The court remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to reinstate the indictment and conviction on
Counts 1, 7, and 11.  The court affirmed the judgment of acquittal on
the other seven counts.  Pet. App. B.

   2. Petitioner contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction.  Pet. 8-12.  Whatever the merits of
petitioner's contention, it is not presently ripe for review by this
Court.  The court of appeals' decision places petitioner in precisely
the same position he would have occupied if the district court had
denied his post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Counts
1, 7, and 11.  After the district court sentences petitioner on those
three counts, he will be able to appeal his convictions to the court
of appeals.  If that court should reverse petitioner's convictions and
remand for a new trial because of trial error, petitioner's claims
might be mooted by an acquittal following a second trial on the
merits.  On the other hand, if the court of appeals should affirm his
convictions after imposition of sentence, petitioner will be able to
submit his present contention to this Court, together with any other
claims he may have, in a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
review of a final judgment against him.  Accordingly, review by this
Court of the court of appeals' decision would be premature at this
time.  /*/

   It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition for a writ
of certiorari should be denied.

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   AUGUST 1990

   /*/ Because this case is interlocutory, we are not responding on
the merits to the question presented by the petition.  We will file a
response on the merits if the Court requests.