United States v. Alfonso Acosta

necessary as such facts are show that property forfeited. should

This he to do. failed

Appellant’s arguments regarding rulings of the trial court as to his arresting agent cross-examination of the attempted are also without merit. His cross-examination the affidavit support of the arrest warrant ivas irrel question

evant to the of whether the boat contained contraband.

Appellant attempted also to raise entrapment per the defense of possession sons in of the boat at the Entrapment time of its seizure. is a personal may defense and be raised person entrapped. Appellant standing to raise this defense. Finally, alleges appellant denying trial court erred in his coun damage terclaim for to the boat and (cid:127) loss of service while it was stor age. specifically pro U.S.C. § bringing any arising hibits the claim goods from the detention of or mer Appel chandise officer. customs remedy lant’s would be to show un constitutional forfeiture sue under 1346(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. He § pursued course. Affirmed. America,

UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant. Alfonso

No. 73-4016. Appeals, United States Fifth Circuit. Oct. 18, 1974. Rehearing Dec. En Banc Granted

I. war- magistrate the search issued

The of fed- rant, of an affidavit the basis on Drug Administration Enforcement eral Agent affidavit set Licon. Oscar following facts: out approx. 8-30-73, 12:00 at “On of Det. Noon, informant a confidential Maya me there was stated to F. at of heroin located an ounce Alameda, #11, Paso, Space El Texas fur- The informant in the bathroom. belongs to Alfonso ther stated that it male, approx. Acosta, a Mexican age, years this trail- of who resides at further er. informant stated cutting, was in the act of di- Acosta luting packets heroin into small day. papers called resale this same for The informant that Acosta has stated procedure in done the same the trailer on at least purchased occasions after large quantities heroin. of Tex., Paso, Fashing, for El John L. informant has another occa- defendant-appellant. Agents sion assisted Federal in initi- Atty., Sessions, S. San U. William S. ating cases. The informant states Marquez, Tex., Ronald Antonio, Edward August positively that on Paso, Attys., Ederer, El Asst. U. S. F. approximately p. 10:00 m. she ob- Tex., plaintiff-appellee. for served the said heroin in the bath- GEE, TUTTLE, WISDOM Before premises room said above described Judges. it is and that she knows heroin and present prem- still said Judge: TUTTLE, Circuit ises.” guilty in a found Alfonso Acosta was The last sentence of this was recital non-jury possessing, magistrate’s intent trial of suggestion, added at the distribute, heroin, I con- originally presented a schedule as the affidavit was substance, in violation of 21 U.S. trolled to him the “it was believed Drug Agents 841(a)(1). pot adequate justify C. issuance § nothing obtained warrant,” Administration Enforcement “there search Alameda, indicating El prior warrant for 7143 search in the reli- affidavit Texas, space Au- ability #11 on Paso, trailer In addition informant.” gust 30, seeking by numerous there seized 1973 and the affidavit bolster detailing weighing approximate- packets personal of heroin ob- the informant’s Appellant ly servations, questioned ounces. one and one-fourth challenging brings appeal Agent validi- Licon name of and learned the upon By chance, ty war- which this informant. issued, appealing as well ant had been the source rant was

sentencing pre- procedures by previous used which had been the basis for a siding magistrate, judge. reverse the conviction warrant issued We knowledge past grounds im- on his own on the that the warrant was based Magis- issued, accordingly experience properly do informant, with the sentencing. Boyd question Re- the warrant trate issued reach today. consideration versed and remanded. Magis- gathered tion, suppression hearing, his information Boyd a reliable manner.” United States testified that

trate Chavez, (5th name I learned the . once 1973). immediately re- informant viewed all of these details “prong” of the While the second test past reliability informant’s detailing per- is satisfied basis, in to the informa- that addition informant, the sonal observations' of Agent he would tion Licon said which thereby guaranteeing the informant that to about inform- swear under oath relying “something is more substan- heroin ant said she had seen circulating tial than a casual in rumor day to be there knew it that or underworld an accusation based agreed there, point I issue to that merely general repu- on an individual’s point the search warrant. tation,” Spinelli v. United a reli- became convinced that this was 410, 416, 584, 589, 89 S.Ct. L. able informant and the search war- “prong” (1969), Ed.2d 637 the first should issue.” rant the test is left unsatisfied. There is nothing necessary proves feel in did not it the affidavit which to transcribe a recitation own the informant reliable. af- concerning personal knowledge formation reliability the informant’s fiant himself had no my reliability informant; to own as because “involved knowledge subjective mind.” the fact state informant had “on oth- procedure Agents This quired not the re- er does meet occasions assisted Federal initiating says nothing standards. cases” whether eases thus initiated were successfully prosecuted, they whether II. were supplied based on information on its face The affidavit fails informant, so, or if whether the in- adequately to to out facts sufficient set proved formation to be accurate. Final- impartial to con enable an despite ly, the fact per clude that cause existed being identifies the informant as “a con- mit issuance a search warrant. fidential Maya,” informant of Det. F. evaluating standards be used Maya there is no indication that Det. re- well facts set forth affidavit are garded the reliable, informant as understood and this Court certain. As past experience whether tending he had recently stated: (cid:127) reliability. to show typically test is “This referred , In United Harris, States v. ‘Aguilar’s Spinelli two-pronged test.’ 573, 2075, 91 S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d 723 the 1969, 410, Supreme Court held that where an affi- 637, 21 L.Ed.2d supporting davit a search warrant fails Mendoza, See United States to ant, reliability establish the 891; Cir. 433 F.2d Gonzales v. might certain details corroborative 963; Beto, F.2d Unit- 5 Cir. be substituted for a statement relia- Marihart, ed bility. In Harris four were factors held 809, 811; Note, Supreme F.2d together adequately establish reliabili- Term, Court—1970 85 Harv.L.Rev. ty. (1971). requires ‘prong’ The first particular Harris, affidavit disclose Unlike the affiant here could concerning justify facts or make no circumstances which statement trust- concluding informant, a re- that the informant is worthiness of the nor trustworthy person. concerning liable or he make The sec- the bad statement requires specific reputation Further, ond facts or circum- of the defendant. tending stances unlike the to demonstrate statement of the informant informant, ques- in the Harris instance in had conducted illicit defendant, thus trate be recorded and made with the transactions constituting against penal diver affidavit. While there was some declarations gence nothing interest, Circuits affidavit here views between the prior suggests to the October 1972 amendment informant made require against 41(c) penal Rule her interest. as whether statement recording testimony supple said ment of oral the fact that the informant While menting required speaking from firsthand obser- affidavit was she was salvage Harris, vation, like the informant an otherwise invalid support to in the has now that such lends affidavit, the statements this Court concluded recording supplementary testimony

we do believe Harris proposition required. stands for that a state- See United States Cir., (No. Hill, ment of firsthand observation alone is a 73- reliability evaluating construing Court, substitute for where this worth of an informant’s statements. unamended did not prescribe In Harris this factor was combined with the manner in which oral testi others, mag mony by three the cumulative effect of was to be or used a taken issuing which was to failure of offset the warrant, istrate in held in a ac credibility Eighth officer to establish the and cord with and Tenth de reliability of the That cu- non-transeribed, informant. cisions that such oral lacking supplementation mulative effect is here. to an invalid otherwise proper under the Fourth III. 41(c). Amendment and Rule See alsot Beasley, United States v. F.2d 60 485 magis find that the We further (10th 1973); Cir. United Ma States v. personal information cannot trate’s be rihart, (8th 1972) (en 472 F.2d 809 Cir. affidavit. Rule used save defective banc) petition filed, for cert. 42 L.W. of the Federal Rules Criminal (Apr. 8, 1974); Leeper 3611 specifically: Procedure states 1971), States, (10th 446 F.2d 281 Cir. “A warrant shall issue on an denied, cert. 404 affidavit or affidavits sworn to before (1971); 30 L.Ed.2d 671 United v. States magistrate judge or federal state Berkus, (8th 1970); 428 F.2d 1148 Cir. establishing grounds for issu- Lopez States, (5th v. 370 F.2d United 8 ing the warrant. . Before 1966).1 Cir. ruling request on a for warrant the magistrate judge may federal or state are, course, by We bound require appear personal- the affiant to may case, decision the Hill which deals ly examine oath the with search warrants issued before the any may pro- affiant and witnesses he amendment. There is no conflict be duce, provided proceeding that such today tween our decision Hill report- shall be taken down a court decision, specifi for in Hill this recording equipment er or and made cally stated: note that “We course part of the affidavit.” interroga under the amended rule such responses clearly tion and require the affiant’s This rule seems must be any part upon by magis recorded and made a affida- relied Melvin, (4th First, Second, Third, Sixth, 1969) ; Fourth, 1. The 419 F.2d 136 Cir. Unit (3rd apparent Sterling, ed and Ninth were in States v. F.2d Seventh disagreement Circuits 369 799 Cir. 1966) ; untranscribed, Pinkerman, v. F. with this use of United States 1967) testimony supplement (4th ; 2d 988 v. oral an affidavit. Cir. Rosencranz Unit ; 1966) Noreikis, (1st ed See United States v. 481 F.2d 1177 F.2d 310 Cir. (2d 1973) Hatcher, Freeman, (7th ; v. v. United States 358 F.2d 459 Cir. United States (6th ; 1966), denied, Cir. 473 F.2d 321 Cir. United States cert. 385 UÍS. 87 S. 1972) ; Bailey, (9th (1966) ; see also v. 458 F.2d 408 Cir. Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d 109 (9th Anderson, F.2d 174 Poldo v. F.2d 866 v. United United States 1932) ; (9th 1971) ; Cobb, Casino, F. Cir. United States v. United States Cir. (S.D.N.Y.1923). (4th 1970) ; F.2d 716 Cir. require- Hill, supra, one rationale While vit.” United States part of the af- ment all evidence Under amended n. 3. F.2d at magistrate be no fidavit is to ensure quoted there can above rule as necessary to ar- has all the information any affi- to the oral additions doubt that decision, important at a another ra- rive made must be recorded davit guarantee is record of the affidavit. tionale preserved way review in such a later language of Beyond literal newly information, that new either dis- 41(c), the re held that it has been remembered, covered cannot be used quirement Fourth Amendment to validate a warrant after it has been upon to establish information relied requirement issued. all facts “supported oath or cause be upon by magistrate relied be in a any requires informa affirmation” written affidavit insures that “the re- upon by be tak tion relied viewing may court determine whether must be oath en under requirements the constitutional v. Bar shown in the record. Tabasko ton, While upon been met without reliance faded question no view this intimate and often confused memories.” United courts, applies state we believe Anderson, supra, States v. 453 F.2d at weight authority clearly is that important requirement 177. This upon by information relied federal not been satisfied this case and ac- determining prob whether cordingly we must find that the affida- 'able be cause exists must made of a supporting vit the search warrant was supporting the affidavit or affidavits inadequate and the seized un- precise problem the warrant. While the der suppressed. that warrant must be presented previously in this case has not occurred, where it is the judgment The reversed supplies himself who the in additional pro the case is remanded for further necessary proba formation to constitute cause, ceedings ble not we do not inconsistent believe Rule with this provides exception opinion.2 for this situation. normally commenting authority We refrain from dissent cites no for its reliance dissenting opinions, upon approach. but due to the extreme this novel novelty espoused by of the view dissent the The dissent refers to United v. States Cal exclusionary andra, the rule is to balanced be 414 94 U.S. 38 L.Ed. S.Ct. against police case-by-case (1974) misconduct on a 2d 561 which declined to extend the basis, obliged exclusionary grand jury we proceedings, feel to a com- make brief rule to Michigan Tucker, ment. S. U.S. Many utility have (1974), criticized the the ex- of Ct. 41 L.Ed .2d 182 which used clusionary balancing approach determining rule. famil- These criticisms are a the ad fully. missibility iar by and need not be discussed more of statements made the de police prior can There be no doubt that Weeks v. United fendant to Miranda v. Arizo na, L.Ed. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1914) Ohio, Mapp (1966), police where the failed to (1961) sug- give warnings control this case. no There is the defendant the Miranda lat gestion required. i)roperly either of these two landmark deci- er held to be The dissent exclusionary ig- argue sions that be rule can not these does cases are authori opinion reviewing illegally ty balancing nored if for seized exclusion of police court conduct was neither wilful evidence. negligent. exclusionary nor The rule is Rather refers to dissent per se, prophylactic designed Hill, (No. 73-1098, measure F.2d 315 prohibit apparent authority balancing the use of evidence seized in viola- as for tion of the Fourth Amendment. There is exclusion on an of evidence obtained authority proposition earlier, for the exclu- valid affidavit. As we discussed Hill sionary against authority ap- rule is to be balanced the de- not stand as does might proach terrent effect that exclusion for in Hill situa- faced police prior misconduct an individual case. issued tion where the warrant was

mS Judge (dissenting): and, GEE, quirements, my complies mind, it disjunctive on its of the face one by majority The result reached showing requirements of the second: grievous. very to me Under it a seems policeman’s conclusion that basis for the high-level heroin rather dealer—not a the informant’s “. unpun- pusher goes free, mere street — admittedly some- reliable.” It is [was] practical likely ished as matter what on the intrinsic weak informant’s unpunishable, he for acts in which was though credibility, does not seem caught of a red-handed the course very me a strained construction conscientiously- authorized search being her Detective reference as although so, issued warrant. He does Maya’s indi- confidential informant as sufficient was furnished cating her, placed some credence supporting amply facts an affidavit description of her as warrant, solely the issuance of be- Agents helped initiating cas- Federal pressure all cause under the of events forming a es as sufficient basis for the these facts not reduced to affidavit were were inference cases not disas- required 41(c).1 form as indeed, fact, they not. ters —as were being majority infirm, warrant weight place upon doI much brings exclusionary play rule into presence or absence in the affidavit of invalidate conviction and sen- Acosta’s magic or “accu- such words as “reliable” If demand it tence. this be law’s rate,” which cost to add and mean little must, course, be Since I do honored. Transmitting signals little more. such is, respectfully not think it dissent. these, may expect affidavits which lamp Affidavit. smell Deficiencies smack com- pleading. Aguilar2 policeman’s mon-law requires a affi- set davit to forth Aguilar any rate, it is necessary underlying that the informant shown some credible; to be the alternative and suffi- from which circumstances showing cient course circumstances ant narcotics were concluded justifying they were, a conclusion that his informa- he and some where claimed underlying in tion this instance is reliable is availa- from circumstances paranoids ble. Even have en- that the sometimes officer concluded emies, and tell truth. liars sometimes . . was “credible” informant . or his U. “reliable.” 378 strong information there are at hints of Here least (empha- S., 114, S.Ct., at at 1514. reliability. addition, In informer’s added). sis detailed, specific and the affidavit is telling just per tell Beyond about all was to in there adventure the affidavit and then these re- about Acosta his activities as case the first of this fulfils might said, October, As he to Rule 1. Mr. Justice Fortas have 1972 Amendments Spinelli essay 41(c) failed and the warrant contest. United the Court concluded 410, 600, States, 438, 584, properly affidavit S.Ct. was issued because existing (dissent) police- proper (1969) “A L.Etl.2d 637 was the then agrees, judged 41(c). case, In man’s affidavit not be as as the dissent should this essay facially invalid, entry for Rule in an the affidavit contest.” is testimony sup- facts, permit Among made to oral to known or known does not way suggests magistrate, plement that an the form, but not reduced it. Hill informant, justify ad- that the name invalid warrant can were otherwise po- illegally if the furnished she had accurate mission of seized good in a heroin arrest not acted in faith. which resulted lice police pre- earlier, good never and her has month declarations faith of require- against penal viously her own interest. been were used to overrule exclusionary rule. Su- ments Texas, 108, Aguilar preme exclusion- U.S. 84 S.Ct. modified the Court has not 1509, (1964). rule, accordingly ary cannot under- 12 L.Ed.2d 723 dissenting urge can brother stand how our authority. do own that we so on our weight. misery.3 here, therefore un- “A I am as his traffic relevant to magistrate, assurance, say in view with such able confronted when testimony quoted note four at the of his reasonably detail, infer could above, have issued gained that he would his information informant Spinelli the consideration way.” warrant without a reliable 584, improper was there- 417, Its basis matter. States, 89 S.Ct. U.S. constitutionally as (1969). infirm, both such fore Had L.Ed.2d unsworn matter5 made, the af- based it seems been an inference relying procedurally, on matter clearly as have this case would fidavit Fed.R.Crim. to affidavit form. reduced supported it. though 41(c). ma- I think P. Thus did our The trouble is wrong holding, it jority as I believe requisite inference, rather make does, insuffi- is an this affidavit prop- solely from the make it declined to magistrate’s inference for a cient basis Not content er matter furnished him. with the mag- agree cause, probable supplemented even issuing warrant istrate’s action require suggestion, he went on to at his technically erroneous. was Unlike beyond name matter it—the informant’s however, majority, I do not think recognized only then, her he —and when concludes the matter. per- as the source sonally earlier information relia- to him to have been known Inapplicability the Exclusion- 2. The ble, he satisfied that a warrant ary Rule. should issue.4 magistrate’s the exclu- A . determina- It now clear both “. . is sionary represents, paid not a constitu- tion cause should be rule remedy great right, judge-made by reviewing but a deference courts.” tional prime function Spinelli one that its secure police con- 637 is deter future overzealous 21 L.Ed.2d 89 S.Ct. removing it.7 (1969); incentive 362 duct see Jones v. United Moreover, deterrent [t]he 4 L.Ed.2d 697 “. exclusionary reasoning, By parity purpose arily rule neces- (1960). his police en- consid- assumes refusal to do so until satisfied least, very willful, technically improper, gaged or at the eration of material was, was, the in- .swear to under oath about address he where he who age group, said she had seen heroin formant and ethnic where in the house day there, located, it and knew was in there that Hie contraband was agreed point diluting packaging very T to issue the search act of it point sale, that- I became con- warrant. and that informant had seen street Hie eyes a reliable informant vinced that this was and knew it was there with her own issue, warrant should Hie search still there. (emphasis added). interesting compare It this affidavit Aguilar portion of that in with the relevant States, 41, bearing thought 290 5. v. United U.S. in mind three Nathanson that Justices 11, (1933). 54 L.Ed. 159 S.Ct. 78 even it sufficient: reliable informa- Affiants have received 338, Calandra, person at believe 6. States v. tion from a credible and do United 613, 619, 561, heroin, marijuana, 347, at L.Ed.2d at 38 that barbiturates sug- Indeed, (1974). paraphernalia sole that is the narcotics and narcotic 571 other exclusionary gested kept rule being function of the are at the above described conceivably apply premises purpose here. of sale and use which the advanced, provisions avoidance contrary been which have of law. others by to the the partnership judiciary U.S., 109, S.Ct., of “the taint of 84 at 1511. the at ap- majority and maintenance lawlessness” in in official If are correct their integrity,” judicial imperative United praisal indeed "the this we have 357, 338, Calandra, long way Aguilar. at v. States come since 561, 624, 613, at 576-578 38 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. at suppression hearing: figure (1974) 4. As he testified at the in this fact situation. cut no . . . once I learned the name of the Tucker, Michigan at immediately v. all formant I reviewed at past 41 L.Ed.2d at details informant’s S.Ct. thesej basis, reliability on that in addition Agent said he the information which Licon negligent deprived uphold conduct which has im- I would the district court’s Michigan right.” plied finding police defendant of some conduct U.S., Tucker, S.Ct., negligent v. at was neither wilful nor (emphasis L.Ed.2d, appli- at 194 add- proper furnished no occasion for ed). exclusionary cation Nor rule. mag- expand would I the rule “deter” I search this record in for such vain failing istrates upon from to record matter conduct. Informed that Acosta was at conceiving they rely, preparing dreary that moment his elix- they obey will the mandates of review- sale, hopefully irs for the detective en- ing magistrates, we, such as these when essay tered his contest. the cosmic least, are understood. At the would I magistrate, plainly unsatisfied but for a fact remand district court disturbed, questioned him further and finding po- whether the conduct of the good satisfied faith which himself lice this case was either wilful shines the record that cause guided accordingly. negligent, and be existed to believe him and his inartful, plainly As here it was at worst ant. situation oc- furnishes no “[T]his I would affirm. apply exclusionary casion rule to bar the ty . criminali- Sentencing 3. The Procedure. executing the that was obtained in concluding, ques- I would reach the So properly warrant. acted [The detective] sentencing procedure em- tion of going seeking to the sentencing ployed by court. Two magistrate] prop- warrant. acted [The hearings first of were held. At calling erly in for additional gave these, under- the court Acosta to credibility. Thus, to demonstrate cooperate if he would with stand that procedure error attributable to the drug revealing his the authorities they followed is a technical one that credit, redound to sources this would way pur- would in no the deterrent serve recessing permit so.8 him to do poses of rule.” United States noting hearing Court, the second (5th Hill, F.2d at 322 Cir. “Probation doesn’t Officer 1974) [No. 73-1098]. you desire to co- think operate,” passed shown Correctly noting that Rule though heavy, require supple- been amended to matter maximum, sentence. menting be made only sympathize I can While presentation it since of the affidavit drug hierar- efforts to reach court’s Hill, majority opinion dis- seeks to suggests Acosta, through chy the record holding pose precedent of that on go as a may possibility actual- that the court basis. do not think it will cooper- ly Acosta’s refusal have taken away easily. so It is true that so, sentencing. If ate into account Rule’s amendment is one basis of the as Thomas under such authorities however, true, Hill decision. It is also (5th Cir. United language quoted appears above Rodriguez, immediately following the conclu- court’s 1974), (5th the sen- 498 F.2d 302 sion “. . . the warrant was new sen- and a should be vacated tence tence duly authorized” and constitutes an al- imposed consideration without ground ternate of the decision: Rodriguez, As we said this refusal. duly au- even had the warrant been thorized, fur- “. . situation In Thomas . abuse clear apply exclu- . held it a no occasion to nished] sentencing judge to sionary rule for the . discretion [since] a proce- him with the man before error attributable to threaten did they if he one sentence dure followed is a more severe technical guilt. As way admit his the deterrent clean” and would serve “come retains explained, purposes defendant of the rule.” Ibid. you you Probation Officer talk to the ... I am would 8. “THE COURT: sure good you help up I ... hate to see if this. clear some of got you Talk wasted. have be if a mind as a mind do course were of so. Of you it, if we do some- him and let’s see can’t are not of a mind to do it doesn’t thing.” you are on the indicate to the Court ... I road to rehabilitation. wish rights important Fifth Amendment verdict, jury a reaches after rights made must not be leniency. sentencing price of place defendant cannot court abandoning his of either the dilemma risking rights Amendment Fifth sentence. harsher court cases the it is that both True urging defendant the convicted was acknowledge only guilt, I but own his Acosta could to see how am unable implicated without, at least tacit- others admitting complicity. ly, his own conviction, affirm

would therefore for and remand his sentence but vacate resentencing. REHEARING FOR PETITION ON REHEAR- FOR PETITION AND EN BANC ING BROWN, Judge, and Before Chief WISDOM, BELL, GEWIN,' THORN- GOLDBERG, COLEMAN, BERRY, DYER, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CLARK, SIMPSON, MORGAN, RONEY GEE, Judges. BY THE COURT: A of the Court active member having poll requested service application on rehearing for en bane and a judges majority in active service granting in favor of re- voted Justice, Brown, Dept, Ernest hearing banc, en appellant; Crampton, defendant Scott P. It is ordered the cause shall Meyer Gen., Rothwacks, Atty. Asst. Jon- by the reheard Court en banc briefs Cohen, Brown, athan William M. S. argument. without oral The Clerk shall Attys., Justice, Div., Dept, Tax Wash- briefing filing set a schedule for brief; C., supplemental ington, H. An- briefs. D. Charles derson, Atty., U. S. of counsel. Tenn., Nashville, Leekrone, James D. plaintiff appellee; for bers, L. Cham- John Tenn., Nashville, on brief. SYSTEMS, PERFORMANCE INC., Suc- Sys- cessor Minnie Pearl’s Chicken WEICK, Before EDWARDS tem, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, Judges. CELEBREZZE, Circuit UNITED America, STATES PER CURIAM. Defendant-Appellant. in the action District was No. 73-2210. corporate recovery federal Appeals, United States Court of $171,572 in the taxes amount come Sixth year Circuit. plus interest, for the taxable 1967.

Argued June Inc., System, Minnie Pearl’s Chicken July Decided wholly corporation, Tennessee subsidiary taxpayer, Per- owned of Systems, Inc., a Ten- formance likewise corporation. nessee

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Alfonso Acosta

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 18, 1974

Citation: 501 F.2d 1330

Docket Number: 73-4016

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.