In Re Sacher Association of the Bar of City of New York v. Sacher

appeal with- case and the file to the board they me And, also informed belief. out consideration as to reclassification authority put me they had no deprived rights his fit, appellant local board they saw that 4-D if 4-E or Regulations. under the As held to send do would be thing they could Bejelis case, provisions manda- Appeal these my file to case tory deprivation and their Board, thing the next violation was Stiles, process. of due Local v. be hear would would Zieber, Cir., 455; 169F.2d v. United States Board. Draft Laier, Cir., 90; v. United States happened.” all that “That’s D.C., v. F.Supp. United States And, ? “Q. then Peterson, D.C., F.Supp. Oh, testify proceeded “A. steps re It is established that the beliefs, they my conscientious quired by statute Regulations and the that would be useless to continue said precedent to. to be condition taken they authority, had no and so because followed, strictly induction other must I left.” report Ver wise the order to is void. Cf. Appellant further testified that he would Sirmyer, Mehren 36 F.2d 876. explanation of the have continued with the point dispositive of the case Since is Scriptures minutes. He also for five or ten we whether do consider the up “Why my clear said that he wanted any there was for the classifi basis in fact and to changed” classification had been appellant cation of the in 1-A. pertaining to information give “Additional The of the District Court why objector.” These I am a conscientious appellant discharged. reversed and the not denied. statements are authority The construction its by the local board was erroneous.

given had is not correct that the local board no

It

authority Regulations to re under appellant, it correct

classify nor was only thing board could do and the file to to send the case

would be appeal board. SACHER et al. re contemplate particularly Regulations The OF CITY OF ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR of the case the local reconsideration NEW v. SACHER. YORK clas- light of the discussion board 183, Docket No. 22302. No. any registrant and of new sification Appeals Court of United States hearing. presented at the oral evidence Second Circuit. Regu- The 1624.1and 1624.2. Regulations emphasize this fact when lations Argued March registrant direct attention authorize July 6, 1953. Decided any his file which he be- information Aug. Rehearing 20, 1953. board has overlooked or to which lieves the Denied weight. A given sufficient fur- it has purpose indication of evident

ther provision particular is the sections

these may presented, information

that new registrant “believes assist

such as determining proper board in

the local provisions These would he

classification.” no au- if the local board had

Meaningless reclassify registrant.

thority to Be- conception its erroneous cause immediately compelled to send the required by

misconduct this record shown disbarment, although judge the Sacher’s “I stated: find in the entire record no in- by that his tainted timation conduct was venality fidelity of interests lack clients, of his which demonstrate —offenses turpitude wholly His moral absent here. fault, rather, seems to have stemmed temperament which led to excess of zeal it representing his clients that recognition responsibility obscured his of very the an officer the of court. Thus qualities my judgment make him professionally unfit to remain a member of unobjectionable this Bar well be competitive commercial fields where effort required subject the not restraints of instance, an officer the Court. For * * * negotiations expect Adams, City (Wil- F. W. H. New York trustworthy highly he would be a Philip Smith, New liam C. Scott and C. ” ** * representative. effective petitioners-ap- City, counsel), York for petition Paragraph 15 the pellees. Bar Associations 36 instances of Harry Sacher, sc, Tay- pro and Telford conduct, improper of which the court held lor, City, respondent-appel- New York proved, 28 had been requiring disbarment. lant. specifications Two the were discussed in HAND, Before N. AUGUSTUS by detail District evidencing Court as CHASE, CLARK, Judges. Circuit particularly serious misconduct have emphasized appeal by been on this re HAND, Judge. AUGUSTUS N. Circuit spondent discipline influencing the im posed. appeal This is an from an One related order dis to the continuation of barring respondent by a cross-examination Sacher which the jury being permitted respondent misconduct while was under what the during the misapprehension selected and course of knew the trial to be a facts leaders, the communist who had in which he been failed to correct. The was Act,” under dicted the “Smith held have sufficiently U.S.C.A. not estab advocating contempt overthrow of the lished proceedings against § government respondent, the United Sacher, see Cir, force U. S. v. violence, Dennis, 416, 424-425, States v. argues and he Cir, affirmed 341 71 therefore cannot be said to have been 95 L.Ed. 1137. The pro sufficiently proved pro here. But ceeding ceeding, was commenced pointed out, service as the below order to show peti deny cause issued Sacher did the allegation not that he by the Association of the judge’s misapprehension, Bar knew City of New York the New York did to avail oppor not seek his County Lawyers’ testify. tunity Association. Although On the trial the burden of sitting proof petitioners, the District Court before without is on the accused at jury torney evidence introduced greatest owed the court the frank the preliminary pro record of trial and proceeding ness in a such as this. Cf. ceedings Randel, Dennis re case—the Matter N.Y. testimony offered no be impressed on his N.E. We are carefully opinion half. considered argument Sacher’s that he did Judge deny Hincks held allegation instances of since it awas conclu- law, agree required sion of and we with the court be- 14 charges disbarment. These substantially low that failure to correct trial were the same nature as judge’s misapprehension was a violation of those for which disbarment was ordered professional duty. under Paragraph by The instance that was stressed second Basically respondent’s argument the remark; respondent’s Judge the Hincks was previous that in view of his unblemished many “They early did so discipline [the record disbarment Christians] is too severe a disclosed, things, than this evidence impose to part brought conduct in on McGohey contemporary that if were by Mr. the demands of an im- unusual and had in the portant of he would have place trial which an took in Jesus Jesus quite remark atmosphere dock.” Even if this was not hostility of toward the defend- such ethics a serious breach of ants. He further maintains that instances Judge thought (see properly Hincks of conducting subsequent Canon 17 of the American Bar Canons of to Association’s the Dennis trial established the that Ethics), im- since the intended finding Professional court’s that his recalcitrance is port may only United congenital, have been that if the so that similar misbehavior Attorney prosecuted expected future, clearly secret could be groups was required logic the same would have erroneous. extraordinary now The nature of when the him have done had he lived trial was considered the district did, capable court, misapprehen- agree provided it was and we of ex- no Jesus purpose many cuse for effect were sion. When its instances of misconduct respondent of which evidently guilty. an was misunderstood as attack We think that it opposing was incumbent on him not to religion, counsel’s Sacher impeded have clearly apologize progress trial’s should not have refused to ways evidently sought that he explain. to do. Nor repeti- anticipating did err in any decreed on event disbarment was respondent such felt of tactics if the independent we be- grounds other which advantage, would be to his for he justified types fully lieve order. Two persisted period over an extended in his alleged Paragraph 16 the Bar conduct disorderly ways defiant and in the face of petition re- were each held to Associations’ repeated warnings by the court. respondent al- quire longer be no purpose striking The at practice lowed to before the court. This torney from the rolls of a court is not to “persistent- paragraph that Sacher punish protect him but to itself repeated warnings ly, disregard of the public of a and relieve member of the Court, argued without and orders of the profession, who is unfit to serve as permission; refused desist from [and] such, respect in order to maintain the due comment” and that he made argument attorneys, insuring the court who “insolent, sarcastic, impertinent and dis- court,” pro “officers are of con- respectful remarks to the Court and Rouss, fessional character. Matter of See provocative manner.” himself in a ducted 81, 85, 116N.E. 782. Because the N.Y. examples respondent’s con- For a few consequences necessarily of disbarment are opinion in States v. see our duct severe, it is a measure be exercised Sacher, pages 423- parte compelling reasons. Ex See affirmed S.Ct. Wall, 107 U.S. that, further found 717. The court L.Ed. 552. In the case at bar we think that L.Ed. Paragraph 14 of although the unprofessional proved con instances conspiracy petition that a had existed constantly repeated duct, in the face of the representing de- counsel other other with admonitions, continuing during improper specified ob- court’s obtain fendants clearly duration, of extended a trial improper conduct was jectives respect lack for the demonstrated a established, allegations treating the constituted a serious obstruction court and in- surplusage proof conspiracy as justice. It is evi- the administration Paragraph alleged misconduct dividual doom reversing the harsh case unable either was respondent dent fortiori upon him below. visited a court obligations to comprehend his when to fulfill them unwilling or was law operated First, procedural rule here no if Even inexpedient to do so. felt it he contrary, there respondent; on the discipline measure severe less For as in his favor. a definite one any ’find do not imposed, we correctly points opinion herewith majority disbarring the re- of discretion abuse out, definitely proof the burden of found as was Second, there petitioning associations. Doe, Cir., F.2d 386. in In re exist situations out differing are the Cir., 2 Chopak, In re See procedural these rules As the Su stem. 835, 67 S.Ct. denied U.S. certiorari out, preme points follow a it will Court 1516, 1848. 91 L.Ed. “in ab court the ruling state disbarment affirmed. Order con grave of some reason the sence trary.” 288, at page S.Ct. U.S. CLARK, Judge (dissenting). Circuit page Under such circumstances dis lawyer proceeding against another In a court would barment in the district below legal tangle, four caught in this same Rule of the 5(b) automatic. General Court, point- Supreme of the after justices United States District the Courts charge by judge in the the ing out that the Southern and Eastern Districts New conspiracy deliberate to York. convenience, Dennis trial Considerations of support justice was found to lack fairness to litigants, dignity and of the obstruct contempt case support the federal comity. evidence both courts proceed- present disciplinary But here the courts of New York have not finding spoken. ing, proceedings said: “What remains Since go state would unplanned immediately guilty lie was several con- before bench of the First during long Department, Appellate Division, tumacious outbursts N.Y. They “Perhaps Judiciary Law, McK.Consol.Laws, 30, trial.” continued: bitter c. § 90, patience 2, our own short subd. we here lack consciousness the conviction unduly failing pro which action makes us considerate con that distin guished tempers of our contentious craft. Perhaps of others tribunal would afford us. deprive permanently wholly one the state waiting But courts are on our deci sion; profession life, only responsi of his at Isserman’s time makes our paid bility dearly after he has his heavier. fault, impresses severity as a us which Finally, two further sug considerations bar, purpose no useful serve important gest differences on the record delinquent.” Isserman, or the In re the case respective histories counsel. 294, 676, U.S. Respondent years here had 24 of un professional justices contrary Four other rested their blemished conduct in the state procedural decision on the rule of the and federal entry Court courts before his on the requiring that member of famous hand, its bar who has trial. theOn other Isserman any previously disbarred had been state convicted of a crime suspended should disbarred before it unless practice. he for a time from contrary. Supreme showed In the cause That Court dispute there was operated by weight rule reason of to how much Isserman’s dis should be accorded highest facts; barment New these dispute court of warmth of the sug Jer put sey gests, however, burden him which he had did assume con justices equally met. Since the importance. were siderable Further, on the (one justice opera divided not sitting), crucial of conduct in the four of this years burden subsequent him led to liis trial, justices possible apparently disbarment the narrowest of all had little information on Isser margins. man; Here there significant speak several the dissent does well of such personal differences favorable respondent, appearances to this as he previously had I should think render made this an before But them. as to we Sacher hysteria atmosphere of substantially more. all this behalf, abated. appearing own addition be appeared respondent has below and par- briefly Having thus discussed difficultywhere fore us cases some I perhaps respondent, ticular fate of uniformly conduct been has his most stop since feel here. But dignified, but courteous and deeply than the are more involved order, unusually ability high as we have individual, hon- even vicissitudes one Cir., Hall, 2 out. United States pointed reputation courts for federal or and 727,730, certiorari denied 198F.2d analysis of the impartiality, a fuller sober appeal from 73 S.Ct. impelled. for this decision seems basis where D.C.S.D.N.Y., F.Supp. facts, I must raise two I turn Before by the also commendation showed record important to which questions of law as Dis judge; rel. Nukk v. U. S. ex district majority holding is erroneous. think the Immigration and Naturali Director of trict case as one treating The first is in we to zation, F.2d 242. .Were primarily of the dis- within discretion hardly defender, could public we select a disposing trict court. And the second is respondent’s services than seek do better question, touching as it important of this type it is difficult where cases of court, by panel, a integrity does the un and will representation able secure court. full and consequence doubtedly become more so first, Treating the last matter on this. of decisions such Corp. v. appearance Pac. R. of Western concede, 260, Indeed, everyone C.o., 247, seems 345 U.S. Western Pac. R. respondent is against impli- though argument at an an with least 73 S.Ct. concession, respond- very of of nev-

made on of criticism our cation ability, how to con- ent, lawyer knows banc, a sitting of it to me that er en seemed profession and can do in his disposed appropriate duct be of an issue ex- The fear is the need. feels if he presented. so here Ac- the full bench was “safely” cannot conduct pressed poll Judge to cordingly the Chief I asked not have upon; but since we do court, relied did; be the active which he of danger to intimation of case, remotest here the three judges available to sit otherwise, this defrauding or clients sitting banc and two for voted en hereafter judges district fear that my request given must be a Consequently was not it. re- with courtrooms their here, control as I effect; involving, cannot decision and repudiate my part I present. For believe, fact, is and errors of law of respondent, to me It seems minority idea. I be-' only the court. That of including a experience, searing after his right. lieve is not gives imprisonment, sentence severe considering responsibility Now con- proper professional earnest of appeal, I do wish to con- this court cap- quite are judges duct, that our Hincks, Judge who vey any criticism exercising there be—of need able—if visiting designated in this case sat dignity firmness degree of proper dignity with and de- who acted judicial fitting conduct necessary very seem circumstances But these votion. business. responsi- more to the ultimate point the quite un- be ours and the wisdom therefore, bility to me a which This, seems above, requir- law, judicial cited example York the New necessary ill-fitting proceedings go once apparently ing trouble does which harshness Judge difficulties of sense of court. The brothers, pellate judging from upon position, as a visitor called Hincks’ is affirmed. the sentence with apology part the criticized weigh in considerable can as the stand I cannot believe local, fellow, judge, albeit actions of premises, or the courts in action final placed have been never should He obvious. for reinstatement application an clear; His concern is position. in such when the more favor with not meet Fisher, Cir., 179 F.2d may re be termed what I believe it led him to Fisher, certiorari denied Kerner both directions backwards leaning over 606. Here findings L.Ed. 71 S.Ct. markedly fact favorable to make credibility evaluating the is no legal conclu- respondent and like then witnesses; everything upon turns fact for his petitioners and thus for the sions trial, printed transcript the Dennis For we have judge and court. brother familiarity by re dupli- with which we have a surely and not anomalous the result— exposure peated more extensive ab- precedents cated elsewhere —of judge. so if visiting had the And whose con- than lawyer disbarment of solute here, isit our “venality penalty lack is too severe or no taint duct clients,” to. duty hut to take action responsibility the interests of fidelity to representing his correct it. “excess of zeal “unobjectionable qualities clients” Thus come once the occur- making him in fields” or commercial bearing rences at the Dennis trial and their trustworthy highly negotiations “a judicial process operating through representative.” There must effective Anglo-Saxon procedure. the medium of con- topsy-turvy in “our something when planned, that trial was it When seemed that Supreme Court’s craft”—to use the tentious demonstration, well afford a profes- apt expression lawyer loses —a interest, world-wide of the capacity of very displaying those permanently sion American courts to show evenhanded with it. qualities most often associated justice litigants to all even under the diffi- law. can do not believe that cult circumstances of a mass trial involving law, believe, opinion. is rather clear. conclusion, matters At its For al- aptly principle in though is stated its The fundamental course had by been marred cer- 335, Fisher, 80 Bradley v. 13 Wall. U.S. incidents, tain boisterous it seemed that 646, 355, 335, 20 L.Ed. thus: “A removal possible considerable satisfaction with should, therefore, Bar never be peculiar outcome reached from the an under the diffi- any punishment present. less where se culties But that decreed assurance was reprimand, temporary dispelled sus vere—such as judge soon when the trial took the accomplish pension, unprecedented fine—would the end summarily or course of sen- implicitly recognized lawyers, we have So tencing desired.” defense without trial controllable, open, hearing, and hence miscon or to substantia! terms of im- venality trial prisonment a where no was in duct at for their conduct during the would not warrant disbarment when conspiracy volved a trial to jus- obstruct Doe, 95 In re 2 we said tice which he concluded existed. This fitting “Disbarment is when the 387: overshadowed at once all the fine per- corrupt conduct; guilty has attorney been efforts prosecution sistent of the pre- witness, attempt or paring conducting of some to suborn a to so hard a case. But document, more, juror, forge bribe a or to a to question raised the insistent property, tilings clients’ or other judge’s embezzle whether the action did appear not dealing.” fair to honest and judicial abhorrent a vindictive than nature. upper rulings; appel These are Nevertheless he by was sustained divided seem late courts without ac judicial votes on most his substantive cept responsibility charges, which should be the conspiracy charge falling. freely and to reverse where theirs But whatever the strict merit of these penalty decisions, they of disbarment is considered too held far more immediate Patterson, Cir., popular appeal severe. See also In re 9 than sober ap- 966; proval; Bartos 176 F.2d v. United States Dis and the doubts which have Nebraska, Cir., permeated Dist. of 8 scholarly trict Court legal field1 suggest comments, 112; 2 763; For critical see Buffalo L. .L.Rev. Calif 2 Stan.L.Rev. 795; 153; 540; Corn.L.Q. 66 Rev. Harv.L. U. Pa.L.Rev. 6 Vand.L.Rev. ; ; 120; 509, 510; Frank, Law.Guild Rev. 36 Mmn. Yale Rev. L.J. Supreme 1951-52, L.Rev. 965: Ore.L.Rev. So. United States Court: 36á try misapprehension what he judges for other so knew to be a unwisdom the facts which

summary a.course. he failed to correct. Sacher, Cir., United nothing more Hence even were there affirmed Sacher v. deserved the record to soften otherwise 424-425, States, 96 L.Ed. conduct, I lawyers’ condemnation of the curiously 717. But unproven charge judgement of disbarment still feel should brought now back and re against used stated, already not stand. As theory on implied admission absolutely on depends the record decision indulge failure to plead in some formal case; contempt nothing new made ing denial. This seems to me to build respond- against brought out has been ing an on artificial case so formal and allowed nothing elsewhere been ent and ground really technical as to be distress operate the time his favor. Even at ing. perfectly It is pro obvious that this contempt, fiery oc- of the ceeding wholly contempt, rests receding into currences at the trial were charges against order entered past. the 22 incidents Of respondent by original general respondent (in to the addition and that action would never conspiracy) 6 before the occurred charge of say brought To without them. started; and the disturbances jury trial contempt charges then that such of the as trial went pear lessened for- to have have been eliminated careful formal being ward, one cited a month be- the last appellate adjudication again must To rekindle fore the close trial.2 separately denied avail ,of years heat altercations some courtroom petitioners employ here the most re it- justify permanent disbarment is after to questionable gressive pro form .practice; self somewhat dubious technicality destroy man’s cedural unconvincing character suggest that'the particular livelihood. The merits of this picked out for stress below the incidents now re-examined the ma undesirability points general and here jority; appear so far as available type for this retribution so extensive a previous us, our decision seems more in conduct. with the facts than accord our noted first of the two instances The one.3 majority respondent’s cross-examina- The guilt to other incident affected the pleas to of a as tion witness impeach judge more than brethren here below charges in order criminal if United contempt proceedings respondent’s remark that credibility. was In the contemporary Attorney a charge re- “were unproven the that we held dock.” he would have had in the the cross-examination continued Jesus Jesus been first as by under This seems to have stressed permitted it was when many started, prob Harper and would have solved 20 ofU. Chi.L.Rev. 43-47; urged Lawyer trial Haber, It has been in Political lems. Troubles avoiding judge Trials, 1; the chance of and see also wise Yale L.J. Stubbs, by refraining Whitty, from earlier action. mistrial 14 Mod.L.Rev. justification exculpatory But, a later retribu com 643. For Can.B.Rev. wholly irrelevant; action, 594; seems 38 A.B.A.J. The Rec tive ments see gone conclusion, 192, 206; a the case had [1952] U.Ill.L.Forum ord speculation otherwise what Va.L.Rev. 957. happened cannot affect that out Sacher, States v. 2. See page 465, See at come. 1, 465, note 4. note page 451. at up drying a seems have been There appeared with- the witness had It incidents the defendants untoward guilt pleas judge of car- firmness to drawn exercised after weapons, rying lay later to receive concealed in June after accused ward 2% respondent’s acquittals; contention of trial. Of course there months always witness’ he wanted to show the firm whether remain the testimony by prom- pearance counsel, induced exercised at an ness toward jury early date, of such reward. trial ises even before provocation apparent. for the elements of Obviously is not. in tone. antireligious judge accepted as the But is held uncom to have example is rather It provocation time, at the so that much allusions citing historical mon he and charges agree those with him are be who merits reflect a took reciprocal allusion some lack of to tolerate litigated; hooved being attorneys indicates restraint and refrain provocative form emphasis.4 attempt from continued retributive actions at possibly ill-advised reaction, an them. We do not need formulate prosecutor’s even to Considering the express greater or criticisms of the human mortals have tended would apology later participated But to who counsel. in this drama to feel that brotherly among accord seems the disbarment circumstances now make most undesir a basis for its lack make approach incredibly sharp- to the able so unreal as this. For our to me an country. he, wife, courts should like trials Caesar’s above of criminal realities suspicion; my in life is to judgment they strong Certainly whose business one hardly display enough by solidly virtue of records can achieved scan trial comparatively reputation fairness, poise, surprise at im shock compared to occurs partiality incident what any ap trivial to afford avoidance of reprisals.5 later many a trial without pearance prejudice. of vindictiveness or The events of the Dennis touched the however, this, there still re Beyond all judge closely, just authorities suggesting ameliora consideration mains a show, initially cited that retribution started penalty, advert— to which I must only appear many hands can to be prestige the honor and touching as it does vindictive, and later per T affirmations timorous much matter how of the court—no protective. I do not believe our courts sonally doing so. It is should like to avoid give nearly occasion for so merited now well known that there repute. shadow on their highest circles of the Under the criticism grant mercy circumstances a here would Dennis case on the judicial conduct great show courts in tolerance and engaged ground understanding, consequently human counsel and even to a the altercations with strength; they promoted gain nothing, stand to certain extent them. 343 U.S. 14-89, certainly beyond discriminating, 72 S.Ct. not want to with the 451.6 do re confidence, sacrifice if hoped count the allow details which had could vin forgotten; dictive harshness to control their sympathy soon be and I can find actions. and other Country See the of Professor 6. See also 60 Yale L.J. 1 cita comment 1 supra. man of Yale 174 The tions in note University, Nation “Thirty-two years Juno 1952: certainly have no wish to Moreover, ago, in another prosecution, Communist of the nor attorneys; defend the conduct Clarence Harrow pros I ever. Thus in what hoped jail ecutor ‘would have sent Christ of words 1 said: careful choice “To just you the same as would these defend Anglo-Saxon in schooled traditions one ants.’ In the comparative calm of the decorum, pressed resistance thought 1920 Red hunt no one of dis by these various occasions appellants barring holding Harrow or him in con rulings of the trial neces And tempt. tlie bar weathered many sarily abominable.” appears arguments years of his more zealous page limitation 463. This defense.” arising of incidents the one series out of rulings an over-all opinion As was not char points out, of in- alleged appellants stances acterization as mem specific acts of mis- bar, apparently conduct bers of the assumed, Dennis the district record, Isserman, found In re N.J. supported. It is difficult e£. 87 A.2d occasion for 903, 904; procedural to see how the 8 he found not proven dif- is a necessary important altercations materially fered or con- nature, intent, to be recalled when sequence from those element supported; the nu- issue weight suggest punishment ances of differentiation as to the of the relied on to be ephemeral nature inflicted. changing human conduct under stress here so drastically penalized. short, serious wounds why must the most justice be self-inflicted? I would reverse. Rehearing. Petition

On

PER CURIAM. rehearing denied.

Petition for

CLARK, Judge (dissenting). Circuit my record view I desire to

While of the points in criticism

pellant’s of law entered court heretofore opinion peti- and that case well taken are banc, yet I shall en ought to be heard separate of all vote

not ask for petition. I do think we

judges on requirements for with the complying Pac. R. hearings stated Western

en banc Co., R. 345 U.S. Corp. v. Western Pac. sufficiently point is review, purposes on the record

made judges now by only the three vote and a participate would and available active de- convincing than be no

doubtless minority The in- of the court.

cision expeditious suggests that review

terest of delay had in this court. no further say that me to

Judge FRANK authorizes ought issue views that the

he concurs banc, en but that no further to be heard

steps should be taken here view properly record and we can

state of the hope for instructions

await

Supreme procedure we Court as to the

ought to follow. CARBON CORP. CARBIDE &

UNION PETERS et al. 6610.

No. Appeals States Court Fourth Circuit.

Argued June Aug.

Decided having judges

1. Two meanwhile retired.

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Sacher Association of the Bar of City of New York v. Sacher

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Aug 20, 1953

Citation: 206 F.2d 358

Docket Number: 183, Docket 22302

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.