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.

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