the information, asserting three constitutional challenges to § 28-320.02. He alleged that the statute was facially vague, a violation of his right of free speech, and an impermissible regulation of an instrumentality of interstate commerce. The district court overruled his motion to quash without comment. A jury trial was conducted on June 13 through 15, after which the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On June 17, 2005, Liston filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s overruling of his motion to quash. The Nebraska Court of Appeals, however, summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 7A(2) (rev. 2001). State v. Liston, 13 Neb. App. lxxii (No. A-05-752, July 27, 2005), citing State v. Pruett, 258 Neb. 797, 606 N.W.2d 781 (2000) (<HOLDING>). On August 31, Liston was sentenced to 3
holding that denial of motion to vacate discovery order and to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 usc  1782 constitutes final appealable decision holding that overruling of motion to quash does not affect substantial right and is therefore not final appealable order holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a  1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right