United States v. Randy Beltramea, 831 F.3d 1022

Randy Beltramea was indicted for fraud, pleaded guilty with assistance of FPD attorney Terry McAtee, and later was indicted for obstruction for allegedly breaching the plea agreement.
New outside counsel represented Beltramea for the obstruction plea; Beltramea pled guilty to the obstruction charge.
The government subpoenaed McAtee (an Assistant Federal Public Defender) to testify at Beltramea's sentencing about the alleged breach.
The Federal Public Defender moved to quash McAtee’s subpoena; the district court denied the motion. The district-court proceedings remain pending.
The FPD immediately appealed the denial on McAtee’s behalf; McAtee has not refused to comply and has not been held in contempt. Beltramea (the privilege holder) did not join the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction over an immediate appeal of an order compelling production from a subpoena target	FPD: Perlman exception permits immediate appeal to protect privilege	Gov: General rule requires contempt or final order before appeal	No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether Perlman exception applies when subpoena targets a party’s attorney employed by FPD	FPD: Perlman allows quash of subpoena to third-party custodian asserting privilege on behalf of privilege holder	Gov: Perlman limited to disinterested third-party custodians and to appeals by the privilege holder	Perlman inapplicable—the subpoena target here is not a disinterested third party and the privilege holder did not appeal
Whether contempt is required before a subpoena target may appeal	FPD: Immediate appeal necessary to avoid impossible review	Gov: Target must refuse and be held in contempt before appealing	Contempt (or other final order) is required; immediate appeal improper here
Effect of privilege-holder not joining appeal	FPD: FPD asserted privilege on behalf of McAtee	Gov: Absence of privilege-holder means Perlman exception doesn’t apply; postjudgment review remains available	Dismissed; court did not decide hypothetical where privilege-holder had joined

Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (establishes narrow exception allowing immediate appeal to quash subpoena to a third-party custodian)
United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (explains rule that a party must refuse and be held in contempt before appealing, with limited exceptions)
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (courts must independently confirm appellate jurisdiction)
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (discusses scope of Perlman exception)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Malone), 655 F.2d 882 (8th Cir. 1981) (applied contempt-before-appeal principle)
In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) (clarifies Perlman is limited to appeals by the privilege holder)
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (postjudgment appeals generally suffice to protect privilege)
Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1956) (discusses attorneys’ ethical obligations)