*1 right оf the voluntary waiver knowing and 3005; a waiv- rather under § counsel America,
to two Appellee, UNITED STATES defendant unless the presumed will be er request for has been show that can DOLAN, Dwayne Appellant. circumstance counsel, equivalent or an two No. 75-1150. that the clearly demonstrate which counsel.4 required additional Defendant Appeals, United States Court of Fourth Circuit. as to this issue Thus, the decision Argued Feb. 1976. of the record but the silence not on turns Decided Nov. that there Court holding of the District After ex two counsel. request for was no record, we hold that there
amining the finding.5 The District in this clear error to credit the self- obliged not
Judge was unsupported state but otherwise
serving justified Appellant
ments that no circumstances
inferring from other We would add had been made.
request to the factors noted
that, in addition Court, finding sup below
District nothing there is the fact that
ported Appellant that the at to indicate record with the expressed dissatisfaction
any time by his afforded representation
quality attorney. From this hold
court-appointed prior holding in view of
ing, and judgment that the
Blankenship, it follows affirmed as to must be the District Court review. presented for second issue
AFFIRMED. exist, example, proceeding may but also contains the advice a circumstance 4. Such expressed Judge Appellant “may has dissatisfac- Lewis that the defendant be enti- where Blankenship, attorney; appointment his one tled to the more than one coun- tion with sel, necessary, supra, slip opinion grand That did not at 6-7 n.3. if the if returns a capital-offense in the case at bar. occur indictment.” Tr. at 4. While prior occurred this statement indictment finding be considered and thus cannot for the There is further Appellant subsequent recently was advised as to § tran- discovered District Court in indictment, hearing Judge it serves to underscore the script before to his of the March regard Lewis, only Appel- on the record with silence elsewhere reveals not alleged requests request two counsel in that additional counsel. made no lant
were, fact, controlled substances under the federal law. narcotics Our consideration of this contention is by two guided principles.
First, in passing on the sufficiency *3 evidence to a criminal the sustain convic tion, we decide not the whether evidence pеrsuaded have guilty us to return a whether, viewing but the record verdict light most government, the favorable to the substantial evidence from which jurors could concluded have without a doubt reasonable the defendant com offense charged. United States mitted (4th 1970), 198, 421 F.2d v. Sherman Cir. Roberts, Jr., Chesterfield, denied, Va. 199, 914, Philip 1717, cer. 398 90 U.S. S.Ct. (Garner & Rob- (1970). 78 [court-appointed 26 L.Ed.2d counsel] Chesterfield, Va., erts, brief), appel- on Second, lay testimony and circum lant. sufficient, evidence may stantial without Field, III, Atty., Chаrles- U. John S. chemical expert introduction an anal ton, (Frank Jolliffe, E. U. Va. Asst. S. W. identify to establish the of the ysis, sub Charleston, Va., brief), for W. Atty., alleged in an involved stance narcotics transaction, (4th v. appellee. Gregorio United States 1253, 1263, F.2d 1974), denied, 497 cer. Cir. WINTER, and WID- RUSSELL Before 1024, 501, 95 42 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. 298 419 ENER, Judges. Circuit may (1974). Such circumstantial in physical appearance evidence of the clude RUSSELL, Judge; Circuit DONALD transaction, substance involved in the aby jury Dolan1 was convicted Dwayne produced evidence travel with of interstate counts on four sampled by effects when expected someone narcotics busi- carry on unlawful intent drug, with the evidence illicit familiar 18 in violation of U.S.C. enterprises ness was used in the same the substance manner 1952(a)(3) 2.2 He was sentenced §§ drug, testimony the illicit that a high five-year impris- terms of four concurrent paid substance, for the cash price onment; appeals, challenging he involving transactions evidence proprie- sufficiency of the evidence and were secrecy carried on with given instructions ty supplemental deviousness, and the sub in his Finding court. no merit by the trial was called the name of the illegal stance contentions, we affirm. by the defendant or others in narcotic his strongest Gregorio, is that States v. argument supra United presence, Appellant’s 1263); Quesa (497 at v. legally at trial was insufficient F.2d United States the evidence 1975) 1043, 1045, (5th in the involved Cir. 512 F.2d cer. prove that substances da denied, 946, 356, which he was convicted 423 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 46 transactions indictments, government voluntarily appellant testified trial that the correct at dis- 1. The Dewayne spelling alleged The Dolin. Two of his name missed Count unlawful dis- attorney appellant drugs the record that stated for of 21 tribution in violation U.S.C. 841(a)(1); jury acquitted point misnomer. was made and the on Counts § alleged Three and Seven which also unlawful 74-72-CH, indictment, original distribution. four counts on which con- Dolin No. 2. The One, super- were Five and was convicted Counts Six counts. Count Four tained seven 74-116-CH, single-count indict- 74-72-CH the sole count of of No. No. seded the two trial on Prior to consolidated 74-116-CH. ment. 1222 Crank, v. Law (1975); United who indicated States 277 and others
L.Ed.2d 433, 438-39, used the substance after 1974), returning F.2d to West (7th Cir. 507 son 1446, Virginia, that it denied, 1004, 43 testified was three hundred 420 95 S.Ct. cer. U.S. “hits” v. Atkins of LSD form of little United States (1975); 762 L.Ed.2d “orange pills sunshine” “or- cer. de 314, known 308, 1973), 473 F.2d Cir. (8th He ange barrels.” also while 2751, nied, 37 L.Ed.2d 412 93 S.Ct. U.S. actually he did not see appellant take Fantuzzi v. (2d United States (1973); 160 “orange sunshine” while were in 7; United 683, 689, 1972), n. 463 F.2d Cir. Ohio, must appellant have done sо because Agueci (2d Cir. 1962), 310 v. F.2d States “tripping.” Crank “trip- he was described denied, cer. 817, 828-29, U.S. 83 ping” as “the hallucinations and such that Toliver 1013, 10 (1963), L.Ed.2d S.Ct. through go when take LSD” and 1955), (9th F.2d States Cir. “[y]ou can anytime stated that tell anybody 742, 745. *4 This evidence on LSD.”4 was sufficient in Examination of the record this jury the to permit to conclude that light principles in the these leads us of case purchased was, beyond in substance Ohio there was sufficient evi conclude that to doubt, LSD as alleged reasonable in the jury cоuld have from which dence indictment. doubt, found, that the beyond a reasonable alleges Five that appellant, alleged involved in the incidents substances Ware, Michael R. Brisendine and Jo Steve were narcotics. illegal the indictments in seph Michigan January, Bizek went to S. in pertinent summarize below the evi We buy “phencyclidine, commonly respect to each count on which with dence ” as TCP’ or known ‘THC.’ Bizek and was convicted. appellant that trip Ware testifiеd on this one ounce of 74-72- Count one of Indictment substance, to which members of the group alleges appellant that traveled from CH “THC,” purchased referred as was for $800 Virginia in the of 1972 Spring to Ohio West in described cash. Bizek as substance Crank, Burgess, Bob and oth Randy powder crystal white plastic contained in a buy diethylamide ers, lysergic acid bag. He sandwich testified that Brisendine Burgess trip on this testified that [LSD]. tested the substance “snorting” it5 and (“tabs”) pur hundred tablets were two good.6 then sаid that Brisendine, for in cash. He described the $200 chased who that he experience admitted had deal manner in which the transaction devious “THC,” ing LSD, in and testified effected;3 and he testified that in a was “crystal that THC.” Crank, among appellant, himself discussion of Keith testimony Bailey indicated that just prior transaction, the others to the and participants transactions in involved group referred to the members this case used “THC” as a synonym for as purchased to be “LSD”. propеrly “PCP.”7 The could have According Burgess, hallucinogen asked him (insuff- the others which 3. could be “snorted” carry they purchase. nasally), injected out While re- lated smoked or into a vein. at the house of known as “the mained someone Dayton, with two uni- in he went Dutchman” 6. Bizek also testified that he and others gave men to where he another house dentified “smoked some of the THC” in Brisendine’s him the cash. The two men left alone at them returning Virginia. trailer after to West subsequently second house and returned this LSD. the tablets which called Although usage this varies from correct medi terminology (properly used, cal “THC” an expressly Crank did not state extent tetrahydracannibinol, abbreviation hal he was familiar with LSD its effects which lucinogenic agent marijuana, in which is not trip. prior to this While such generally market), available on the illicit conclusive, made the evidence much have more practice many is in accord with the of those do not believe that its is fatаl to the we absence unlawfully phencyclidine, who deal government’s case. Hospital Pharmacy Drug Bull. and the witness, Analysis Bailey, (University Keith testified that Service 5. Another Information PCP, “THC,” Francisco, Calif., Feb., 1976) Burns, known to was a also him as San ethylamide marijuana. to establish Riddle sufficient [LSD] found one thousand to two thousand testified that trip on this purchased the substance that pills plastic bag in a were orange little fact, PCP.8 was, in He stated purchased trip. ap- on this that February^ allеges that Count Six pellant pills, took one or two of Hardway,9 Gene Rob Rick appellant, reported said were “someone” traveled from West Bailey Keith inson “high.” they made him Fink testified that buy heroin and Michigan Virginia to purchased the substance was two or testi According Hardway’s marijuana. mescaline; thousand hits of but he three for one fourth paid in cash mony, $275 the basis for his not disclose conclusion did Hardway testified of heroin. an ounce drug. Brisendine, identity of the that, testеd the heroin appellant above, who, experience deal- stated so, “high,” his doing appeared he to be after “THC,” LSC, marijuana, and testi- ing slowed. speech and his glassy eyes became paid a thousand in cash was fied $350 paid that he who testified $90 Bailey, “orange orange pills which called heroin, grama approximately cash According testimony, to his or- microdot.” the heroin tested appellant confirmed ange microdot is also called barrels He stated it into his veins. injecting is “either old LSD or mescaline.” He heroin, appellant injecting the that, after and mescaline further LSD 10 Hardway testi good.” “it said thing,” being “the same mescaline “a heroin himself and tested the fied form of LSD.”11 This evidence was mild *5 This evidence was good. it knew permit jury to conclude sufficient that the sub to establish sufficient legally purchased trip that the substance on this actually heroin. was stance was either mescaline or LSD. Indictment 74- single proof count of To the extent that The Riddle, Gary December, appellant, purchased during the alleged that 116-CH 1973, Jr., Mi Garrett, Terry trip Fink and was either mescaline or con LSD Lee Jesse Michigan in from the a variance indictment’s traveled stitutes R. Brisendine chael allegation that the substance December, 1973, buy lysergic unqualified acid di- Schnoll, Phencycli- Corrado, Lerner, Although alleges James and the indictment that Hard- 9. and Fatali- Intoxication way appellant of Acute States dine: traveled and the others 345, Medicine, ties, Journal of The Western 123 Virginia Michigan, proof West es- from (1975). 346 in the Detroit tablished lived area and group’s was the contact there. 13.08.13, III, lists § 21 C.F.R. Schedule 8. While substance, it does phencyclidine as a controlled Bailey testified that sometime after also for is another name PCP indicate whether not phencyclidine Virginia appellant repackaged to West return presented government and bags in 10 for resale. the hеroin However, point. we take evidence on the commonly phencyclidine is judicial notice that Technically, Brisendine’s (f), 201(b) & Fed.R. See Rule as “PCP.” known point was not accurate. Mescaline is an alka- Pratt, see, g., The U. S. and e. Oral And Evid. Dispensatory peyote plant, the American loid derived from (indicating 1973) (27th ed. Corder, Swisher, see, g., Drug and e. Smith phencyclidine) and is an abbreviation PCP (1975); d-ly- 34 Abuse Prevention LSD is Pharmacy Drug Hospital and the 24 Bull. diethylamide fungus sergic Service, acid derivеd from a (Univ. Analysis 2 Information However, grasses, Francisco, February, 1976) (same). in various id. at 32. found at San Calif. (10th abuser, viewpoint Cf., g., Buren Cir. of a States v. Van Brisen- United from e. denied, 1327, 1328, 1975), 421 quite cert. 513 F.2d Mescaline and correct. LSD are dine (1975) 1002, 2402, 670 substantially 44 L.Ed.2d hallucinogens 95 S.Ct. U.S. (on appeal similar both unlawful distri Osmond, from conviction effects, g., The e. Hoffer Hal- bution, judicial fact that notice of took court (1967) lucinogens, 138-139 and LSD is the hydrochloride sub a controlled cocaine two, see, Corder, g., pоtent e. more stance, though is not listed even Swisher, supra, 32-34 and S. Ein- Smith stein, statute) v. Mills United States name Drugs, Misuse of 37-39 The Use and 345, 291, U.S.App.D.C. 463 F.2d (1972), 149 (1970). effect). 296, (dictum to same n. 27 1224 ap Appellant affect such variance did not also cites error and, therefore, rights supplemental substantial
pellant’s given instructions which were warranted, reported of his conviction is not after the reversal it was unable 78, Berger United States (1935), v. 295 verdict.12 U.S. reach a This claim without 1314; United 629, 82, supplemental 79 L.Ed. 55 S.Ct. merit. The charge was sub 1972), v. (8th 462 F.2d Schrenzel stantially Cir. similar to the States “modified Allen denied, cer. 770, 984, 765, 93 charge” approved by 409 U.S. S.Ct. this court in United Sawyers (4th Rathbun v. v. 325, (1972) 248 States 1970), 34 L.Ed.2d Cir. 423 F.2d 514, States (10th 1956), 1335, 1342, F.2d n. 7. United Cir. 236 It was not erroneous.13 516, aff’d, U.S. 78 S.Ct. we prejudicial error, Because find no (1957). charge gist L.Ed.2d are judgments traveled in against appellant was that he AFFIRMED. engage interstate commerce to in an unlaw enterprise business a Schedule involving ful WINTER, Judge Circuit (concurring and substance; mescaline I controlled and both dissenting): and LSD Schedule I controlled sub agree While I with the majority that stances, 1308.11(d)(12) (14). 21 C.F.R. & § sufficient evidence to convict Do- Thus, sufficiently the indictment informed charge lan of the alleged in Count Six of appellant of the of the of in No. 74-72-CH, the indictment I think it he was convicted to enable fense legally insufficient his convic- defense; prepare his the convic him to One tions on Counts and Five of that indict- this case will be a bar to tion single ment and on count of the indict- 1952(a)(3) under 18 prosecution U.S.C. § extent, ment in No. 74-116-CH. To that I cоnduct, compare, g., e. the same dissent. respectfully Schrenzel, supra, (holding States 769-771 charge illegal of an of d and sale I. sulfate where dl-amphetamine dl-amphetamine of d In One showed sale of indictment No. 74-72- CH, and Bronstein v. *6 variance) a fatal was not Dolan others were charged with States (8th 12, 14 1927), F.2d Cir. travel to obtain “LSD” in the Spring of (holding charge illegal that a sale of an of 1972 in Bob Burgess Ohio. when the a sale
gin, him, showed two unidentified individuals sold to the whisky, defendant, was fatal othеrs, moonshine not a vari what was represent- ance). by ed to be sellers LSD. Burgess was supplemental charge ap- juror 12. The about which No should surrender his honest convic- part: pellant complains pertinent stated in weight tion as to effect of the evidence jurors case, purpose for his fellow or for order to return a in this verdict [l]n determining juror agree a In verdict. each must thereto. words, your verdict must But remember also be unanimous. that after full delibera- your jurors duty deliberations a In have to tion and consideration of all the evidence it is agree with one another and to deliberate your duty upon consult you to a verdict if can reaching agreement a view to an if it with your violating judg- do so without individual be can done without violence individual ment conscience. Although judgment. juror each must decide Appellant also contends that the trial court’s himself, only case for this should be one inquiry response by jury an prejudi- was impartial an of the evi- after consideration jury cial. The was confused the fact that jurors. fellow his dence marijuana and LSD were both I Schedule sub- your juror the course of a In deliberations substance, stances. In the trial court informed not hesitate his should reexamine own scheduling drugs of various change opinion his if convinced it views reaching was not a matter for its juror concern in Each himself is erroneous. who finds verdict. It also indicated minority in his should reconsider light oрinion jurors LSD had no medicinal use and in that some other views of the might majority. Conversely, juror be much worse find- but have a each medicinal use. majority give equal nothing ing interchange himself in the should We find to warrant minority. appellant’s to the views consideration reversal of conviction. A. No sir. We didn’t responded, eat He ours till we you get?” did asked, “What got This is his back West Virginia. hits of LSD.” hundred “Two pur- was what testimony about only Later, on redirect: chased. Q. you by tripping? do mean What to the same testified is the Tripping Crank A. hallucinations and
Randall was as follows: testimony go His you you when through such transaction. take LSD. you arrived happened after Q. What Ohio? Dayton, showing This is the evidence that the all copped some LSD. We orange pills A. I legally were LSD. think it is cop? you did insufficient conclusion. All much LSD Q. How LSD; (1) the sellers it was it shows is said hits. A. (3) form of (2) orange pills; it was information, lay on the above based two LSD, you buying mean Q. By copping LSD; thought (4) lay one witnesses getting it? Dolan after thе transac- witness observed Yes, sir. A. thought in a was tion state induced it? was kind of LSD Q. What drug; (5) the witnesses hallucinogenic Orange barrels. A. when got back to they used Orange barrels? Q. Virginia. Completely lacking was West Yes, either sir. of the witnesses any A. drug and experienced took the themselves are barrels? Q. What they effects which deemed to be those of A. LSD. any evidence showing that either like? Q. do look What any background drug experi- witness had orange pills. just little They A. so that his conclusion that thе sub- ence Orange pills? Q. ingested stance was LSD should be credit- Yes, sir. ed. Crank’s that Dolan was pills. Is that the term Orange Q. “tripping” supply fails these omissions for them? use showing (1) why no was made because just called it sunshine. A. We any reason believe Dolan’s Crank Orange sunshine. Q. Sunshine. drug-induced, e., i. there was behavior Yes. showing experienced that Crank no dealing those who (2) “trips,” were on was made as to showing any basis it? use Q. Did that Dolan “tripping” Crank’s belief Yes, sir. *7 A. drug, possi- as some other oppоsed LSD Q. did? Who one, (3) showing and legal bly of us. A. All (other conjecture) Crank’s made than cross-examination, the defense Later, on orange pills one of Dolan had taken any personal knowl- if he had Crank asked bought Dayton, had that there- any Dolan had received edge that his should attributed to “tripping” fore He answered: LSD. pills. Yes, was tripping. he A. you that? Q. do know How II. anybody on anytime tell is You can
A. In Five indictment No. 74-72- LSD. CH, charged Dolan and others were give him Q. you anyone Did cаrry travel January, interstate LSD? enterprise in “phencyclidine, on a business No, sir. A. commonly known ‘PCP’ ‘THC’.” or is listed Phencyclidine over the controlled sub- all there? Q. you Did take LSD PCP and schedule. THC are not stances you? Did purchased ant being Far from a common and others “an crys- listed as such. ounce of is phencyclidine, tetrahydro- TCH tal name for THC.” cannabinols, ingredient the active in mari- Bailey Keith aon different not establish the juana. The record does Detroit, trip to he and the defendant at- PCP, it reputedly nature of but is hallucino- tempted unsuccessfully to obtain some PCP. phencyclidine is listed in the genic, whereas His was apparently the source of depres- substances schedule as a controlled government’s PCP, confusion of THC sant. phencyclidine: absolutely The record silent as to Q. your is PCP to knowledge? What not PCP and THC are common whether A. What THC. is it? Hallucinogenic phencyclidine. the most names drug. ^¡¡Even testimony showing that convincing the de- Q. Hallucinogen? dealt “PCP” and “THC” would fendant A. Yes. unavailing prove Dolan dealt in thus be Q. Similar LSD? phencyclidine. Somewhat, yes, A. sir. testimony tending The Q. How is used? count is follows: Ware testified Steven inject A. You can it with a needle or he, others, bought Dolan and one ounce it, snort smoke it. of what he described as THC in Detroit. Q. you How do snort it? Joseph Bizek testified same transac- up A. You roll bill or something of He first the purpose tion. stated that that nature. trip been to some buy THC. He Q. What? continued: bill something A. A dollar like that Q. happened you got What after over to through your inhale nose. house? Q. can you Or smoke it? finally got A. We waited THC Yes, A. sir. there. Q. you And smoke it what do mean? put Say you some PCP a ball of Q. did he do with the THC when What you smoke the mari- brought it? juana burned up Dewayne it to A. Handed [Dolan] through marijuana. tried it. Mike Q. it, by injecting And what do Q. try did Mike it? How mean that? snorted it. He A. Use of a needle. Q. snorted it? Mike Q. arm In the or somewhere else? A. Yes. A. A vein. Q. say What did Mike about it? Q. Tell the what happenеd when just laid and said it A. He back you got Detroit. good. A. We couldn’t obtain an ounce of PCP. Q. said he it to Dewayne. You handed only other reference transcript see what Could PCP, or phencyclidine THC is found in *8 Dewayne? handed testimony Harold Robinson who de- bag— a A. It was scribed another transaction in Detroit in Q. ahead. Go which the supposedly defendant and others white baggie powder A. a It was THC, obtained “some heroin or what I in it. It was almost crystals half thought was THC with a heroin base.” full, baggie was. involving place This transaction took heroin February subject Brisendine testified same 1974 and was the Mike he, the defend- is clearly separate transaction. He stated that It Six. incident THC, THC-PCP, etc., A. I believe it was. dealing in alleged from Five. Q. in Count you Do know whether that stuff you got there was THC or not? only that thus establishes was, know what just A. I don’t kind it allegedly involved (1) the substance orange pills. little Someone said it by the represented transactions illicit I’m was LSD. not for sure. buyers to be by the bеlieved sellers “THC”; (2) the substance called something he, then testified Riddle the defendant (3) one powder; and crystalline a white companions purchased and their four ounc- “good.” it and said marijuana “snorted” while witness es of Detroit. His only at best that testimony establishes Bailey’s as to happened what to this mari- which can known as “PCP” juana they is was that all used it. snorted, injected. single His smoked or Mike Brisendine testified to the same apparently is inadver- to “THC” reference invоlving transaction Riddle orange showing that Totally lacking any tent. pills: crystalline ingested the white any witness Q. get Were able to some drugs? rea- effects he had experienced powder Yes, A. sir. were similar to those to believe son Q. drugs? What kind of testimony been Even had such “THC.” Mescaline, microdot, A. orange micro- proved not have it would supplied, dot. thing as the controlled the same THC is Q. Orange microdot and mescaline? men- which was phencyclidine, substance Yes, A. sir. by no witness. tioned Q. many? How A. Three thousand hits.
III. Fink Terry also testified to this transac- charged 74-116-CH in- Indictment tion, describing the substance December, 1973, obtained as carry terstate travel mescaline. substance busi- controlled an unlawful diethylamide lysergic acid enterprise ness The evidence thus shows that the defend- marijuana. The evidence 1,000 2,000 ant and his friends obtained or charge of this follows: conviction 3,000 orange pills which one witness LSD, say heard someone which another testified that he went Gary Riddle described as mescaline orange and/or mi- “purchase narcotics or to Detroit Dolan crodot, which, so far as the record it was.” He continued: or whatever dope shows, no witness tested. Prior to obtain- drugs they? were Q. What kind of orange pills, ing the THC had “been dis- orange pills. I don’t know what A. Just Manifestly, cussed.” this testimony is not it was. kind prove sufficient beyond a reasonable Q. anyone Did take of them? pills doubt that contained Dolan one or two. A. Mr. took charged in the indictment. after he took Q. say anything Did The indictment also charged dealing in them? marijuana. evidence, There is no they good. were A. He said lay witness Riddle’s opinion, than without Q. any way? affect him in Did basis, that pur- articulated them, high but got He said he off of marijuana. in fact chased was I don’t know whether he did or not. I be inclined to nevertheless call this evidence many know how of those Q. Do sufficient, on the theory that it is easier to orange pills there were? little grass-like that а tell 2,000 of them. a thousand Around by looking smoking at it and it than it is to Q. you secured During day orange pills before tell LSD or THC or PCP, drugs etc., looking what kind of at pills seeing
these them and *9 hand, else somebody “trip.” On the other been discussed? no evidence that absolutely accomplices or his did or intend- defendant anything with the
ed to do ap- it themselves. There was
than smoke it, plan to resell and four ounc-
parently no quantity to raise a
es is not a sufficient of such an intent. There is no
presumption took it back to West Thus,
Virginia. I do not think that
marijuana episode alone can convic- mind, my this count. To
tion on the statute
on which the requires indictment is based criminal intent
some sell or distribute
contraband, merely purchase and not use. personal JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Rose E.
v.
COMMUNITY LOAN & INVESTMENT
CORPORATION OF FULTON COUN-
TY, Defendant-Appellee. SLATTER,
Homer Lee
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. COMPANY,
AETNA FINANCE
Defendant-Appellee. HAMMOND,
Dealeaner
Plaintiff-Appellant, CORPORATION,
PUBLIC FINANCE
Defendant-Appellee. 74-3586, 74-3975,
Nos. 74-4183. Appeals, States Court of
Fifth Circuit.
Dec.
Rehearing Rehearing En Banc
Denied Jan.