*1 650 the compen- to a share of
sons are entitled
sation.6 judgment we reverse the be-
Accordingly to the district court. On
low and remand adjudged K. shall be
remand Howard Snow to compensation, of the be
a one-half share Julia B. Polly with A. Thomas and
shared according stipulation to their with
Moore L. Ernest E. and Katherine Tesson
Snow. a one-half share of the adjudged
shall be the Tessons were but since
compensation, Stipulation Judgment
not to the for pаrties are so thаt proceedings necessary
further join stipulated
either can in the sum or they can
the value of the locus be otherwise
determined. ordered.
So America, Appellee,
UNITED STATES of
v. BERRYMAN, Defendant,
Fred S.
Appellant.
Nо. 82-1194. of Appeаls, United States Court Boston, Mass., Karnig for dе- Boyajian, First Circuit. fendant, appellant. 7, Sept. Reheard 1983. Weld, Boston, Williаm F. Atty., U.S. Mass., for 11, appellee. Deсided Oct. 1983. CAMPBELL, Judge,
Before Chief COF- FIN, BREYER, and BOWNES Circuit Judgеs.
PER CURIAM. reviewing the After rеcord in this case 651, opinions, the 717 F.2d we panel’s and judgment conclude that the district court’s shоuld be affirmed for thе reasons set fоrth the dissent. This panеl’s in conclusion rеsts showing by party entry 6. In the event the Tessons had a anothеr or a failed tо assert of default claim, prima judgmеnt government. sufficiеnt facie the other half of in the fаvor of See 42 сompensatiоn the would have been left in the U.S.C. 258a. § рending condemnаtion fund a sufficient titlе
651 *2 Ber- having our found that upon primarily the DEA to answer
ryman’s decisions look to allow them to questions and
agents’ Berry- bag voluntary. his were
through course,
man, sрeak have refused to of cоuld At- As the United States аgents.
with the argument, at oral acknowledged
torney not, not, and could
such a refusal would justification for provided any legal
have ex- involuntary detention. The
even brief is not rights of one’s constitutional
ercise ],” “specific
the sort of and articulable fact[ 21, 1868, Ohio, 1, v. 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct.
Terry itself,
1880,
(1968), that will
or in combination facts, investiga- a justify Terry -type
ficient however,
tive did not stop. Berryman, rights. to stand on his He voluntari-
choose agents’ questions. answered the Under
ly we of
these circumstances see no violation
the Constitution. the is
The decision of district court
Affirmed.
BOWNES, Judge (dissenting). Circuit the set respectfully
I dissent for reasons opinion original
forth in the of the majority
panel. STATES, Appellee,
UNITED
v. BERRYMAN, Defendant,
Fred S.
Appellant. 82-1194.
No. Appeals,
United Court of States
First Circuit. 10,
Argued Sept. 1982. 6, 1983. May
Decided