*1 444 appealed injunction from is order passe, see De Simone
has become is remanded (request and the cause Cir., vacated Lindford, F.2d 1186 to dismiss completion court below pending directions injunctive relief the action moot. moot held review administrative decision); agency final remanded. Vacated and Independ- v. Killeen Fund Servicemen’s District, Cir., F.2d 693 ent School high (right auditorium school use a Nam Viet Show” for a “Counter-USO con- protesters moot held after war ended); Inde- Hollon v. Mathis flict District, Cir., pendent School (injunction suspending rule a school and James UNITED STATES of America mooted athletes married Agent Mabrey, Special the Inter S. graduation). plaintiff’s Reference Service, Plaintiffs-Appel nal Revenue holdings the authorities
these lees, the un- suffices for articulation cite legal derlying principles. Jerry Candy, D. A. C. KASMIR Defendants-Appellants. deciding, Assuming, without No. 73-1973. collegiate single lev instance Appeals, States Court fruition never came to el action which Fifth Circuit. may injunction supported an Aug. college prior officials private school of the withdrawal request, of aid or that other instances private support in violation schools might rights prov
plaintiffs’ have been relief, supported injunctive a full
en and
year indication intervened without subsequent or threats similar actions by any
to act defendants. No
proof permission this was made given. previously No
sort controversy ever been adverse interests
was to exist.5 demonstrated again Assuming, decid without may
ing, applicable that Section 718 case, finding these in a moot bring
proceedings necessary to compliance statutory or con
about made or could be
stitutional supported such record.6 Without finding, no basis Section 718 affords cross-appeal is
for a fee award.
without merit. justiciable, long ago, relationship. became moot did remain Hence
5. Time alter injunctive it become moot now. permanent must con- orders even present justification condi- tinue to find injunction part permanent Supreme or- As Today, decision tions. Court’s simply recited, “Plain- der the district court law clarified far Gilmore has- so attorneys’ fees any particle tiffs’ motion award of for an this area that hereby present action, hold denied.” matter of the *2 pre- production vent income attorney’s workpapers posses- in his ... sion again, That same issue before us time with a different factual back- ground. *3 January 3, taxpayer, Dr. On Mason, was visited in his office Dal- Agents las, Texas, by Special two informed Internal Revenue who Service for Dr. his returns Mason that tax 1969, 1970, years under and 1971 were investigation gave him Miranda and During warnings. visit, one Agents Special Mason’s asked to see Dr. personal Mr. Mason books and records. complied request, at time, same he called his accountant Can- dy, him not show who advised se; Cyril Kasmir, pro Agents. Edward David his records The doctor Goodfriend, Copley, Jr., Candy's E. A. Robert advice, withdrew followed Tex., defendants-appellants. Dallas, desk, for records on and concluded interview. Gen., Atty. Crampton, Scott P. Asst. Snow, Atty., Jeffrey Ernest J. D. Following Candy, call to Dr. Mason’s Acting Rothwacks, Brown, Meyer Chief, Candy informed him called Kasmir and Div., Dept, Justice, Atty., Wash- Tax Candy’s request, visit. At Kas- C., McCown, ington, S. Frank D. D. U. mir and called Dr. Mason that afternoon Atty., Mighell, S. Kenneth J. Asst. U. his attor- the doctor as retained Atty., Worth, Tex., Lind- Robert E. Fort ney. Early morning, at the next Burke, Div., say, Attys., P. Tax John Candy employer, deliv- direction C., Washington, Dept, Justice, D. ered assortment records and docu- s-appellees. plaintiff Mason the doctor’s of- ments to Dr. fice, relinquished to simultaneously and and BELL, THORNBERRY Before rightful, “the indefinite Judges. DYER, Circuit legitimate possession of” the mate- receiving Judge: THORNBERRY, rials. Within minutes Circuit materials, them turned In 5th Cir. United States v. attorney. appellant over to Kasmir as his banc, en aff’d phrased present- the issue day served next summonses thusly: ed ordering Candy Kasmir, the lat on give up and the ter documents constitutional whether testimony concerning give compulsory former self-in- agreed appellant them.1 When neither invoked in crimination behalf 1969, 1970, during following and Dr. Mason firm] were summoned: 1. The documents pertaining papers and 1971. 1. Accountant’s work seek the documents did not Dr. records of Mason’s books and Agents permitted Dr. Mason and 1971. during admit- copies visit and their initial income examine Mason’s 2. Retained of Dr. 1969, 1970, be withheld documents could ted that returns Amend- copies reports a Fifth if he invoked cor- the doctor and other Retained accounting respondence claim. ment self-incrimination [the summonses, gov comply appellants with the have launched a methodical sought pre- enforcement. effort order to ernment disabuse us of the no- pre-Couch compels tion v. United States that White White their defeat. hearing order, They argue the district court doctor’s granted government’s petition on actual of the summoned docu- grounds owned ments is a that the records were crucial factual distinction be- accounting They time tween firm and at the this case and White. see significance served, the records further the summonses were the fact papers The dis here were in Kasmir’s turned the stayed attorney pursuant pending over to attorney-client trict court appeal. order to their
relationship while White the transfer of the documents Appellants in the circum- contend that was not from the client (1) case, stances of this taxpayers’ but from the accountant to standing to raise the agree parties Both payer’s free to be constitutional *4 question before this court is whether (2) self-incrimination, enforcement factual differences warrant re- production of for the of the summons sult different in from that reached records violates Self-In- White. (3) Privilege, enforce- crimination production of ment of for the summons government appel- attacks denied because records should be IRS First, position lants’ from two sides. agents materially misrepresented them- government argues an accused taxpayer. before the selves may object of to summons records Following employed procedure parties in if in the ac- owned third even begin White, appellants’ second cused’s theory standing contention, recognition of invoke for that an cannot accused com- would be of little the Fifth Amendment attorney’s appellants fort unless the unless he both owns self-incrimination possesses question. Fifth Amendment client does have the documents Ap- Second, government the summoned materials. contends “rightful here, appellant posses- pellants contend as never had papers did in that enforcement of of the this enter- sion” because privi- prise by appellants summons violates the lege and the put records minute effort to because of the was “a frantic last taxpayer’s attorney requested beyond con- the reach constitutes records legitimate investigation” by possession by the of a tax structive “winning agents of Initially decision faced with our en banc a footrace with scale, government.” wall White as a formidable pursuant any person, employee to 26 U. The summons was issued ficer of such or or provides (1964 ed.), having custody, person possession, : or care § 7602 S.C. containing re- Examination of Books Witnesses. entries of books of account ascertaining purpose person lating cor- liable For of to the business of the return, making act, any perform required a return or rectness of for tax or determining made, Secretary any person his del- has been or none other any appear liability any person may egate proper, internal before deem liability Secretary delegate time law or at a revenue tax or the or his fiduciary any place equity and to transferee or named in the summons any records, any person respect produce books, papers, rev- internal or such any liability, testimony, collecting data, give tax, such such enue or other and to delegate oath, may Secretary is authorized materi- or his under be relevant or inquiry ; al to such (3) testimony person (1) books, papers, records, take such To To examine may may oath, concerned, relevant be relevant or under or other data which inquiry ; inquiry. or material to such material to such (2) person tax To liable for summon the required perform act, or of- by re fair tax investi- state-individual balance of criminal In the theatre government hotly quiring leave gations, more been issues have few good cause is individual alone until the determination contested than disturbing by re him and shown for scope Amendment of the Fifth Drawing quiring in its contest self-incrimination. the en heavily upon to shoulder evolution individual the historical load,” Wigmore, Evidence Supreme tire privilege, 1961), 317; (McNaughton rev., 1973, our States, U.S. United inviolability 548, 611, of the hu 322, L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. personality and of the spoken in a man us on the before now private enclave journey each individual “to guides far our manner life,” private where he lead judgment, not to the road to down Cir., Grunewald, very sole was the end. Lillian Couch J., 556, who, (Frank dis 581-582 proprietress since restaurant senting), given rev’d financial of her had all 931; distrust independent 1 L.Ed.2d statements; self-deprecatory and our purpose preparing income her privilege, while realization although title to returns, she retained guilty,” is to the “a shelter sometimes been After a' summons the records. protection innocent.” accountant, often “a upon the issued and served Quinn v. the accountant instructed L.Ed. sought-after docu- S.Ct. deliver all up- directly to her ments holding the summons enforcement *5 55, Id., at at 84 1596- 378 U.S. S.Ct. n Supreme accountant, 1597. had no Court held that pos- held that actual Couch Court in docu- Fifth Amendment session, ownership, “bears rather- than owned, merely which she ments which significant relationship the most of possession continuous had been in the protections Fifth Amendment independent for over accountant upon compulsions the individual state she decade,- to which and with of crime.” accused legitimate expectation of no could show at 409 U.S. privacy. careful at 618. But Court was possession” that “actual is not nec- began by quot- note inquiry The Court qua essarily the sine non for successful ing Murphy Comm’n Waterfront priv- of the Fifth Amendment Harbor, assertion of York New ilege the na- : on L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Privilege ture of the Self-Incrimination Yet well situations pro- it and the interests was possession is arise where constructive Murphy, Writing Court tect. pos- relinquishment so clear or the Goldberg this statement: Justice offered insignifi- temporary and session is so personal compul- cant as to leave privilege] reflects It [the substantially upon the sions accused many values our fundamental . intact . . aspirations: unwill- our most noble ingness suspected explained further: Id. Court to- self-ac- trilemma of crime the cruel indeed attach consti- We do . contempt; cusation, perjury importance possession, but tutional preference rather for an accusatorial relationship only of its close because system inquisitorial of crimi- than an compulsions personal in- to those justice; that self-incrimi- nal our fear Fifth Amendment which the trusions nating be elicited will statements adopt not do . . [W]e forbids . abuses; our treatment any per inhumane decline to se rule. We also significance conjecture broadly play “a on dictates sense fair which weighing the extent to and circum- possession cases variety policies enumerated in Mur- Court before not stances phy application would be furthered privilege. Indeed, Murphy, n. Id., at 620 S.Ct. noted that Court “it will not do assign policy . one isolated positive lack indication As a privilege,” on that basis to de- necessarily possession de- physical is not applying cide whether is in stop terminative, not did policy. Murphy furtherance “the” papers were its conclusion Waterfront Comm’n of New York Har- accountant, not the possession of the bor, supra, 378 U.S. at n. S.Ct. taxpayer, at the time the summons n. at 1597 5. inquired the na- into served, but further sought by the sum- records ture of the apply opportunity had our first We and concluded that mons recently the lesson of Couch legitimate expectation of show White, supra, could United States v. regard them because banc, 757, aff’d en Aft- investigation er an IRS had commenced expecta- there little . can be prior summons, to the issuance of are tion of taxpayers’ knowing accountant turned accountant, to an handed mandatory workpapers over and other documents of much of disclosure directly taxpayers’ required in an therein information year later, A White. a summons was information income tax return. What served who resisted largely in the ac- not disclosed is by asserting enforcement his client tax- discretion, petitioner’s. countant’s payers’ privilege. Fifth Amendment Indeed, the himself risks obviously taxpayers Since the were prosecution knowingly if he criminal possession requested actual ma- preparation of a false assists only hope terial, lay their in their con- . . need self- . His own return tention that in constructive protection require the would often through Al- their given right to disclose the information high though attempt to court did not extensions of him. Petitioner seeks *6 writing Couch, term in define that protections constitutional Judge White, court in at- this Gewin very situa- in the self-incrimination tempted explicate Supreme the obligations of disclosure tion thinking: Court’s largely system de- and under exist upon self-reporting pendent possible examples honest of . As such Accordingly, peti- even survive. the Court cited v. a case Schwimmer claim, reasonably tioner here cannot v. and United States United States pri- expectation protected ., an of . In these cases a both of Guterma. confidentiality. vacy successfully or privilege claim of was as- prevent government serted to the Id., at at S.Ct. S.Ct. obtaining parties the from documents adopt- L.Ed.2d at 558. Thus the method prem- temporarily had on the stored inquiry on ed the Court the focuses corporations. of reference to ises The (1) party possession factors: the two these that a cases Couch indicates (2) and actual of evidence where the the might valid on claim of be possessor taxpayer, is not the the theory possession the constructive payer’s legitimate expectation of placed papers in By regard the evidence. consid- person entity ering of physical, hands another or question safekeeping, accused, thereby retain- compulsion personal upon custodial ing right possession any expectation to immediate also but though having might possession reasonably actual attach materials, was summoned Couch, depends upon in policies a test which United States Unfortunately taxpayers purposes privilege.2 and at 763. White, they not fall within that could appealing The ar- most taxpayers had never The definition. gument is that had papers possession of the in actual been sought by “rightful possession” here because this government. The attor- enterprise by taxpayer, .his account- directly ney documents had obtained ant, attorney last was “a frantic evi- record without the accountant put requested minute effort upon the tax- done so that he had dence beyond legitimate the reach of a they payers’ were instructions by “winning investigation” foot- them. he had aware that secured even agents government.” race with transfer, parties White The spite argument’s great superfi- In agreed accountant, had that White reject persuasiveness, cial we it. pa- keep taxpayers the—not —could Couch, Supreme Court refused indefinitely, they would be pers to consider the fact that the documents comple- to the accountant returned sought presently in the taxpay- Thus, the work. tion of White’s taxpayer’s attorney because the right pos- to immediate retained no ers transfer from accountant session; noth- “retained” indeed had occurred after summons ing. not be said to could Their actions been served on the accountant. legitimate expectation have evinced rights ob- [Constitutional circumstances, privacy. Under viously enlarged be this cannot permitted to assert have rights obliga- kind of action. taxpayers’ privilege have been would -parties fixed tions became the nature inconsistent with served, and when the summons with the self-incrimination alter them the transfer did not protect. it was interests lengthy prelude supra, 409 this It Couch United is with finally appellants’ and the L.Ed.2d meet at 616 n. that government’s S.Ct. case, present Our head-on. at 554. But contentions reading us that there transfer of records occurred before the convinces govern Indeed, adopting served. summons had been no basis for day pre ownership position is a issued and served the summons was ment’s requisite privi following the assertion lege. Indeed, Court eschewed would important ownership reliance on obli court hold that the . factor. tie “To gations parties become fixed ownership concept would
to a
Agent
Special
makes his first
when
meaningless
line.” Couch
draw a
*7
taxpayer
appearance
the
and confronts
States, supra,
at
United
un
he is
the unwelcome news
with
gov
agree
the
at 617. To
with
93 S.Ct.
investigation for criminal violations
der
only
read
ernment
here would be not
support
of the tax laws. But there is
ignore
perversely,
the
Couch
but also
position
Couch-,
the con
on
for that
trary,
Fifth
the
historical
elaboration
already
made
the
Court
privilege.
in
Amendment
choose
We
disapproval of
indicates
the
choice which
government’s position.3
United
stead to
test enunciated
See
adhere to the
appears
ownership
only
opinion
might
reported
2. Thus
factor
a relevant
3. The
position
determining
legit-
adopt
is
to consider in
the
expectation
Widelski,
F.2d
imate
with
6th Cir.
States
1,
possession,
denied,
summoned
materials
in his
cert.
opinion
although
disposi-
is
factor would not be
32 L.Ed.2d
But
tive.
in Couch.
Instead
nowhere cited
position
to assert his Fifth
F.2d
Amendment
States
privilege, if the summons had then been
n. 12.
point
Had he at that
followed
served.
Judge
government
fully agree
We
analysis
placed
Gewin’s
and
post-summons
transfer of
that a
control,
he
materials
a safe under his
ignored in
de-
documents is to be
priv-
successfully invoked
could have
ilege
applicability
termination
relying
by
upon his constructive
privilege.
de-
Amendment
Fifth
possession. See Schwimmer v. United
corollary propo-
no less. But
mands
855;
8th Cir.
appellants and
sition is that while the
Guterma,
2nd Cir.
attempted
have
fact
Instead
beyond
put
requested
to his
transfers
materials
investigation, that action
reach of a tax
safekeeping
preparation
and for the
long
wholly proper as
as the transfer
is
of his defense.
In
before the summons
served.
occurs
are thus faced with this dilemma:
We
judgment,
highly improp-
it would be
Fifth
If we hold that no
Amendment
derogation
er and a serious
of the Fifth
privilege
available, then the
is now
ap-
if
Amendment
we were to test
payer’s
effectively de-
have been
pellants’
asking
contention
whether
sense,
In a
creased
his transfer.
they
attempted
keep
evidence
taxpayer is better off without an attor-
investigators.
out of the hands of the
study
ney to
the records than with him.
every
privilege
For
successful claim of
Indeed,
appear
almost
we make it
govern-
to some extent
frustrates
though
taxpayer must
closet
now
ability
gather
ment’s
evidence.
In
myriad tax data drawn
himself with his
context,
priv-
the Fifth Amendment
permit
up
him
around
ilege
demands
study
possess the records
load” in
“shoulder the entire
its contest
position
taxpayer is in a
when the
Murphy
the individual.
v. Water-
grab
physically,
furtive
lest some
them
Harbor,
front Comm’n of
York
su-
New
agent
swoop
surreptitious
down
pra;
(Mc-
Wigmore,
Evidence
attorney is
with a summons while
Naughton rev., 1961) p. 317.
fingering
On the other
the treasure.
hand,
Amend-
the Fifth
if we hold that
importantly, and re
But more
here,
then we
ment
is available
gardless
timing
transfers,
applicability of
appear
it
make
put
appellants could not
the records be
more a matter
yond
unless the
the reach of
IRS
than the substance
of the transfer
form
properly
of a
were
material
im-
privilege since the most
behind
In this re
Fifth Amendment claim.4
portant
this case
difference between
categorical
gard,
can be
some
statements
fleeting
pos-
actual
White is
Following Couch, it is clear
made.
the accountant
that of
session
no Fifth
could assert
and that
privilege in the records
Amendment
admit
dilemmas sometimes
held
accountant.
But even
while
case,
resolution,
from Couch that at
It is likewise clear
of sensible
correct
make the
actual
To
we must.
the time
possession
obtained
decide
choice,
principles an-
records,
day
before
we return
served,
White.
he was
in Couch
nounced
the summons
*8
determining
Zakutansky,
process
incriminat-
7th Cir.
4.
v.
cited United States
plainly
1969,
ing
set forth
denied,
1968,
68, 72,
evidence is
of
character
401 F.2d
cert.
States, 1951,
565,
1021,
628,
341 U.S.
v. United
21 L.Ed.2d
in Hoffman
89 S.Ct.
814,
1971,
Lyons,
479,
But
L.Ed. 1118.
71 S.Ct.
United
v.
1st Cir.
States
incriminating
materials
1144,
of
character
held that constitu
both of -which
put
by
enlarged
sought
in issue.
a
has not been
here
tional
not be
after
a
transfer
which occurs
of
records
summons is served.
form,
question
compelling
taxpayer]
most distilled
is
tion for
in-
[the
to
taxpayer
whether the
a
le-
has
sufficient
criminate
himself.”
v.
States
gitimate expectation
469;
in the Cohen,
of
9th Cir.
summoned
to
see
records warrant
label
also Silverthorne Lumber Co.
constructive
Couch
United States, 1920, 251 U.S.
States,
182, 183,
334-
time. In our accused and the to only per- was sufficient does short-lived permit his He is on the son a claim based Self-Incrim- the client besides himself who is subsequent Privilege, permitted prepare ination and conduct the attorney investiga- evidenced a suf- transfer to his defense of the matter under legitimate expectation of attorney ficient The tion. and his are client permit to retain the so identical with to the func- protection through con- Amendment’s tion ceedings pro- evidence and production structive call its any. sophistry that distinction is mere matter, end This not does now however, answer the for we must United Judson, supra, States v. 322 F.2d question left unanswered which we good at 467. there While be reason attorney taxpayer’s White: whether the permit to intervene and standing has assert encourage so, to do we not, privilege. he then If does claim of require procedure. see no reason to that af order to be court’s is district in firmed, because Thus is not-entitled to IRS Although in his behalf. tervened own enforcement of the summons directed to among unanimity the courts there is production Kasmir for the posed, question in their answers to light However, in documents. of Couch weight authority judgment in our IRS is entitled to enforcement of position supports and reason Candy served summons attorney may claim the Self-Incrimina testimony concerning Privilege of his client tion on behalf sought-after Whether, documents. as a successfully assert his client could have practical matter, enforcement of this privilege. United States ed such gov summons is of benefit the purely 460, 1963, Judson, 322 F.2d Cir. 9th investigation ernment its States, 463-465; 2nd v. United Colton matter for the to consider. As a IRS 633, 639, de 1962, cert. Cir. matter, constitutional the accountant’s 505, 951, 9 1963, nied, 371 U.S. testimony cannot offend the 499; Brody v. United L.Ed.2d Privilege. Self-Incrimination 5, 378, 387 n. 1957, 1st Cir. 243 States, supra. denied, 77 cert. 354 U.S. S.Ct. 1438; Wigmore, Evidence § 1 L.Ed.2d which we reach here does result rev., 1961); (McNaughton Grant mindful of the not make us less States, 1913, necessity collecting overriding the. tax v. United 423; Application time, L.Ed. must revenues. At the same S.Ct. 95; F.Supp. investigative House, N.D.Cal.1956, 144 remember that also States, 8th cf., power v. United but Bouschor Revenue of the Internal Service fundamentally As inquisitorial, 458-459. Cir. explained in United power not in the fash the Ninth Circuit lies Judson, the realities Chamber Star ion Courts litigation High Commission,7 require that the manner, press invade, claim ability client’s civilized be allowed in a successfully every do personality privacy of citi the client could so: zen in the States. party,” nor was first rati- No “third
. other When Constitution country “agent,” “representative” fied, stands nor of this the citizens (1973) ; Brooklyn whatever n. 10 see Whose limitation L.Rev. applied, Origins might Levy, not be Amend- it could L. the Fifth torture also Right Against victim. such draw from the ment: Self-Incrimination blood popularity (1968). Hence the of the rack. See attorneys ty yet dependent upon to de lawyer. the accountant and With- cipher complex venturing out tax laws. And into a dissertation on sit- time, specter ethics, say more brutal uation I am satisfied to *11 lawyers compulsory self-incrimination higher forms and accountants have a duty Today, required acting call was all that concern. to pre- than that of to however, government’s power production vent the through can be of evidence taxpayer’s depend privilege used to stimulate a use a under the circum- predicta privilege ence his and the stances here. The protect to imparted ble records. Once so transfer his client’s confidence during government argues, attorney-client transferred, relationship. compelled materials are disclo privilege exist, The however, does not judgment, sure. In our the inherent purpose for being initially used power compel indirectly thus indi directly stratagem as a or device to by is curbed vidual’s self-incrimination place pre-existing documentary evidence effectively the Fifth Amendment as beyond reach of the law. While con power compel the same result di ceding this, majority in the same Judson, rectly. United States attorney-client breath uses relation policies pur F.2d at 468. The ship in a futile effort to establish an ex Privilege poses of the Self-Incrimination pectation satisfy one of the change merely do not new tech because requirements of Couch v. United niques compulsion have or devices for L. way, replaced the old. Put another we Ed.2d 548. forget must never it is a constitu Couch, taxpayer was not allowed expounding. tion we are M’Culloch v. privilege against Fifth Amendment Maryland, 1819, 4 L. 4 Wheat. self-incrimination even as to her own Ed. 601.8 in her hands of accountant. part, part. Affirmed in reversed The court stated that the two essential bases for the were absent: no BELL, Judge (dissenting): Circuit legitimate expectation personal priva- respectfully I dissent. cy records, governmental in the and no operative against The compulsion person facts here are: (1) sought pro- The records to be duced are owned the accountant taxpayer’s expectation Where is taxpayer (the and not records had to personal privacy in the accountant’s returns). do with compulsion records here ? What produc- did not seek the person there by taxpayer. tion of records owned lawyer pro- in a summons his (2) telephoned When the duce an accountant’s records which were say agents fleeting placed accountant moment in the office, were in the accountant ad- hands of the the accountant. say nothing vised expectation personal An and not produce generated type ipso his records. the Couch cannot be by creating lawyer-client rela- (3) facto then selected a tionship. pretermit I would therefore lawyer taxpayer, took the records further consideration of the element of question (the records), accountant’s compulsion. early office the next morning, where he handed them to Moreover, appear it would taxpayer who, turn, handed them to majority opinion may conflict with lawyer. White, decision United States v. I First, dissent for Cir., 1973, two reasons. tax- banc, aff’d en payer can take no comfort only possible activi- 1335. The differ- disposition appeal, Because of our appellants’ of this we need not consider final contention. White is ence this case and records in re-
the accountant’s flecting, here, the affairs of directly
payer, transferred lawyer. We held the accountant to the no Fifth Amendment there was taxpay- exercised lawyer accountant’s
er
records. join on the I did White narrow exalting form over
basis of substance *12 reserving a different hold-
the extent of ing of facts where the same set through passed the hands of
records had For the I would affirm reasons stated enforcing
the district court to the end of
the summons. LEE, Petitioner-Appellee,
William
Joseph HOPPER, Georgia Warden, S. Prison, Respondent-Appellant. State
No. 73-3601. Appeals,
United States Court of
Fifth Circuit.
Aug.
Rehearing Sept. Denied