*1
Education,
Generally ac- Bank
right
appeal.
& Trust Co. v. Board of
to
them the
may
508, 519,
legal
cepted
no
Ill.
tition case is JOHNSON, Abraham Defendant- Tonella, representation Appellant. Mrs. claimed an end. She has been his services are at object restrained, to the re and does not United States Court party appeals. in interest straint. No Seventh Circuit. June 1956. decree, were to reverse the If we concerned, attorney insofar as the Rehearing Aug. 14, Denied ground only representa that he is interest, party he real
tive represent Mrs. able to would still own wishes and con Tonella her prosecute the suit the state tinue words, events which In other court. impossible to render it have occurred
grant relief this lit him effectual
igation. justiciable no cause He has pending the district court or appellate eases an In such this cоurt. proceed to a determina will tribunal speculative matters as to which tion of proceedings appropriate are before appeal. Mills will dismiss 651, 653, Green, S.Ct. 293; Kimball, Kimball v.
40 L.Ed. 932; 158, 162, 19 43 L.Ed. U.S. Shipping v. United States Dietrich 211; Chicago City Cir., Board, F.2d
X60 Solovy, Chicago, III., for
Jerold S. pellant. Atty., Tieken, Peter John Robert U. S. Chicago, 111.,
Lulinski,
Atty.,
Asst. U. S.
appellee.
Before
FINNEGAN,
MAJOR and
Judges.
FINNEGAN, Circuit
pleading
in
After
a six-count
charging
violation of U.S.C.
2553(a), 2554(a), 21
U.S.C.A.
§§
§
grains of
in connection
321/2-45
cocaine, defend
heroin and 25
un
ant
relief from his sentence
ed.). Upon
(1952
der 28 U.S.C.
§
motion,
asks our
denial of his
review
district court’s order.
studying
pleadings and
After
say
imposition
briefs, we cannot
on the various
ran
of sentences
afoul of
Fifth Amendment's interdic
jeopardy. There is
transcript
us,
of evidence before
quan
the indictment does show different
of heroin and one of co
tities
caine, and two differеnt dates of trans
States,
actions.
299, 303-304,
L.Ed. 306.
Despite, the faithful
efforts
Solovy, Esq.,
appointed
S.
Jerold
counsel,
behalf of his
cause we find
same,
1 and are
to in counts
disturbing
ferred
the order
reason
no sound
possession al-
purchase and
and that the
leged
overruling
motion.
transaction
involved a
count 1
Judgment affirmed.
the sale
inсidental to
Rehearing.
*3
for
Petition
On
assump-
alleged
2. I make the
in count
so as to reach the
tion
MAJOR, Circuit
urges, al-
question which defendant
by
opinion written
approved the
guilty
I
plea
and in the
of
aon
agreed
Finnegan
Judge
I
possible, even
proof
is
absence of
though
it
was
result
I
think the
result.
still
assumption
the
probable,
not
thе
that
deny
peti-
the
hence vote to
correct and
is unsound.
rehearing. However,
think
I
for
tion
petition
defendant’s
for
On
order, particular-
explanation is in
urged
stated,
it
is
“defendant
argument
ly
of defendant's
view
in
person
con-
a
Court that
could
be
rehearing.
issue
sole
for
secutively
purchase and
sentenced
the
by
sentences
is that
the defendant
purchase
narcotics,
of
such
sale
upon
in-
imposed
counts
various
single
and sale constituted
*
transaction.
a
Fifth
are
of
the
violative
**
xhjg
deter-
Court was asked to
Constitution, which
Amendment to the
mine whether or not was violative
“* * *
any per-
provides,
shall
nor
meaning
purpose
Fifth
and
the
thе
subject
offence
son be
for the same
fragmentize
single sub-
Amendment to
a
put
jeopardy
limb
in
of life or
twice
dissecting
by
the
stantive transaction
* *
pur-
and incidentаl act of
de-
the
the indictment to which
While
possession
and
from
chase
the consum-
plea
con-
fendant entered a
selling narcotics,
act of
im-
matе
and to
counts,
only
in
tained six
it is
pose
separate
thereon
sen-
consecutive
for defend-
order
disclose the basis
tences.”
1 and
ant’s contention
сounts
to refer to
is,
Thus,
position
and
defendant’s
to meet the
be in order
must
Amendment,
“On
alleged
defendant
that the
1
Count
interdiction
*
**
charged
February
1951,
8,
did
same
the
two counts
or
the
about
that
**
*
willfully purchase
posses-
unlawfully
and
the
and
and that
* *
*
alleged
al-
the
1 and
sale
in his
count
have
and
sion
single
grains
and 25 leged
of heroin
proximatеly 45
2 constituted a
count
cocaine,
grains
heroin and
which said
transaction.
**
*
and there
not then
was
cocaine
my view,
conten
stamped packagе
original
nor from
by
completely
rea
refuted
the
is
original stamped package,”
vio-
soning employed and
result reached
2553(a). Count
of 26 U.S.C.A. §
lation
States, 284 U.S.
alleged
“On
about
or
180,
out, court makеs sue jeopardy provision mention holding, Its Amendment. separate and distinct however, effectively dis were for a contention posed basis applica provision was terms it is limited to its
ble offense.”
the “same examined the numerous cases I have in view of defendant but relied Supreme holding of the Court in unnecessary I think