United States v. Newt W. Goodwin and Kathleen L. Nail

2518(3)(a)-(d). U.S.C. judge, §§ denying and in issuing or appellant’s constitu- did not violate years. This kept ten for be shall event however, right, there was because tional Although have should court the district independent con- adequate information lan- the literal paid to attention closer justify find- tained in the affidavit requirement, statutory the guage of the ing probable United cause. See of constitute sufficient variance 799, (3d Sterling, v. States apparent purpose The error. reversible probable 1969). judge could find A Cir. by sealing requirement, shown of the information of the on the basis cause provided leg- 2518(8) by (b) its and rest of the § informants, the af- the justifies history, this conclusion. islative for standards meet the fidavit does designed en The section was Aguilar probable forth cause set applications are that the orders and sure Texas, 378 84 S.Ct. U.S. Moreover, the confidentially.1 treated (1964), Spinelli v. L.Ed.2d 723 sen in the last on limitations disclosure States, the the indicate of section tence (1969). 21 L.Ed.2d 637 confidentiality congressional for concern appellant’s remain- have examined agent underlay the Since the section. find them with- also contentions and privy application and was made the out merit. no evidence there is the orders and since judgment of the district court The anyone content that he disclosed their will affirmed. chambers, leaving judge’s else after the immediately sealing his the documents leaving not be would after the chambers his of Nor would breach confidence.

a storing

the documents violate stat

ute, specifically cus since it states

tody directs.2 shall be wherever court 2518(8) (b)

Thus, is read when § America, UNITED STATES light legislative purpose, it is of its Plaintiff-Appellee, apparent procedures that the followed were not erroneous. While case Kathleen L. Newt W. GOODWIN appropriate, and would have been more Defendants-Appellants. Nail, future, recommend it for we judge for No. 72-1882. agent rather than the Appeals, Court United States sealing documents, sealed would his Circuit. Fifth confidentiality have added Dec. 1972. the documents. Rehearing Rehearing En Banc Appellant alleges that his Denied Jan. 1973. right infringed fourth amendment by the failure of to turn Government inspection tapes, over him for certain the contents of which to es were used probable wiretap

tablish cause provision report congressional discussing re- 1. 2. identical The commit In explained custody lating tee of the records that drafted the statute report congressional solely requirement interceptions, function agency’s protecting confidentiality enforcement terms “Most law noted: Comm, supe- safekeeping will facilities for sensitive information. See [sic] Senate agency Judiciary, Report nor- on on the court’s and Omnibus rior mally custody. retain be ordered to Streets Act of should Crime Control Safe Cong. 1967, S.Rep.No.1097, Cong., .” Id. 1968 U.S.Code 90th 2d . . (1968), reprinted in Ad.News 2193. Sess. 105 1968 U.S. & Cong. pp. 2112, Code & Ad.News corporate creditors lants to the hearing the bankrupt and to the court matter. jointly

Appellants six distinct raise appeal, the first points of error in little trouble five of which we rejecting. to.be meri- we find The sixth Nail, appellant and we re- torious as to Appellant Good- her verse conviction. Metairie, III, Summers, A. William however, conviction, all win’s La., for Newt W. Goodwin. appellants' things affirmed. Because Orleans, La., primarily events points concern Stamps, of error J. New Robert during of their course occurred L. Nail. Kathleen for trial, case facts of this discuss the Gallinghouse, Atty., U. J. S. Gerald point only they each raised. relate to Cazalas, Livingston, Mary Robert J. La., Orleans, Attys., New Asst. U. S. I. States. Appellants their first assert as GOLDBERG, COLEMAN, and Before judge to refused the trial that error Judges. GODBOLD, Circuit dire jury question voir at that ask a the requested pursuant appellants to had 24(a), “[W]ould Fed.R.Crim.P.: Rule Judge: GOLDBERG, Circuit upon predicated the jury . . the . Appellants, L. Kathleen Nail and [appellants] did not if indictment and Goodwin, bring appeal Newt W. hold this fact . . . take the stand against [appellants] judgment of entered from a conviction judge The trial ?” guilty jury after a found them on all request he reasoned the when refused indictment counts charging a seven-count unequivocally (1) jurors had that the having them with violated 18 agreed any he instructions to follow by knowingly and fraudu- U.S.C. § might give them, appellants (2) if had lently transferring concealing prop- and the submis- stand not taken before the erty bankrupt corporation of a with in- case, the instruct the he would sion of bankruptcy the tent defeat laws. ju- fact, (3) ignore and jury that Goodwin, Nail and who are sister ig- expected to could therefore be rors brother, were one time of Mr. at officers testify, if that appellant’s failure nore Shop, Inc., corporation. Mod a Louisiana Appellants developed. sub- circumstance alleged in It was the indictment and testify, and the sequently declined to by jury found adjudication that from time of jury accord- judge instructed trial Shop, Inc., of Mr. a Mod as ingly.1 bankrupt until the date the indict- necessarily 24(a) vests ment, only part Rule the cor- of the assets of re- judge discretion poration by appel- with wide trial made were available provides “Now, specifically in this case of the defendants 1. the law failure persons standing witness stand in take the that trial Federal presump charges violations, no behalf creates on in their own Courts criminal per you they be, request, against not them and must their own but at tion slight weigh in otherwise, competent even witnesses at mit this fact time, degree against law, In defendants. trial. The the same said est subject you traditionally provides fact, mustn’t allow that the failure on your part into discussions of the to make such even enter defendants jury, request your man a a deliberations a shall create person ner, presumption whatsoever.” so jury Therefore, failed charged standing that trial. is no There you expressly the instructions court. instructed that to follow are Roberts, garding manner which the voir v. States d.2 dire conducte See United 930. is to be Gassaway, 5 Cir. 456 F. States v. Appellants 2d have cited us no cas III. supporting suggestion es re their argument Appellants’ is third fusing question to ask the instant they prejudiced by the erroneous discretion, abused we find that Spe- certain evidence. introduction requested 24(a) failure a Rule to ask cifically, they complain that Donald L. question does not amount an abuse Hughes, agent quali- FBI an who general ques if discretion the court’s accounting, expert fied at trial as an tions, coupled charge with its to the province was allowed to invade the jury, party protection a afford jury giving opinion testimony. by sought. Gassaway, su United States urge They er- further this asserted

pra; Jackson, States Cir. compounded ror when tabular 1971, 448 F.2d 539. summary of his was intro- duced into evidence and taken into the II. jury Finding room. neither supported record, reject Appellants’ assertion second both contentions. they were denied a fair trial the Sixth Amendment because the trial Hughes great length testified at permit inspect court refused them regarding books financial Act, under the Jencks U.S.C. § Shop, Appel Inc. records of Mr. Mod report a written of FBI interviews with regarding objection “opinion lants’ witness find this Ross Summitt. We ar testimony” Hughes apparently is that gument to be without merit. The trial imply was allowed state which and/or judge allowed defense counsel to exam conveyances Appel “were fraudulent.” regarding ine the Jencks witness Act give virtually guid lants’ us no briefs judge personally material. The then ex alleged ance as to this error when oc amined the material camera sup curred us no and cite authorities challenged sealed the documents in an porting argument. Nevertheless, their envelope for inclusion the record on independently we have the studied en appeal. opened have the sealed ev Hughes’ tirety testimony, of Mr. which idence and examined the docu approximately pages covers two hundred ments, FBI we find to be memo which reporter’s transcript, of the find agent’s investigative randa of an inter nothing approaches even that the level (FBI 302). views Form The documents improperly stating conclusory infer interpretative are interviewer’s ences. notes, they quote do not Ross Summitt signed directly, they are directing or oth Without our atten adopted by According erwise any specific pages Summitt. tion record, of the ly, wording appellants urge under neither the clear of the next that error was com elucidating tutelage Act Hughes’ itself nor the summary of mitted when chart Campbell 1961, States, v. United was jury 365 U. introduced and into taken 85, 421, 428, S. 5 L.Ed.2d is this room. findWe that assertion is See, g., material e. similarly lacking discoverable. support. United in factual 24(a) 2. Rule attorney attorney of the Federal Rules of Crim- ant or his and the provides: inal government supplement Procedure the ex- may permit inquiry “The court the defendant amination such further as it attorney attorney or his proper and the for the deems or shall itself submit government jurors prospective conduct the examination additional such prospective jurors may questions by parties or itself con- their or attor- duct neys proper.” the examination. In the latter as it deems permit event the court shall the defend-

899 “summary” dence and the of other wit- indeed admitted was One agree itself evidence,3 with nesses. Since the chart was thus into but we g., admissible, see, government met the e. United States that this evidence using supra, Kane, was no error in applied United there in this tests Circuit. 77, help only 1971, jurors Kane, as a visual aid to 450 F.2d 5 Cir. States v. summary understand other before 85-86, charts evidence them. that makes clear ordinarily the trial are admissible following discretion court’s when IV. are conditions exist: the charts based Appellants’ point is fourth an upon competent before evidence prejudicial com error assertion primary jury; evidence utilized admitted, as trial court mitted when construct the charts is available “system intent,” proof evidence comparison in order other side for occurring the transac of events summary may correctness after in the This named indictments. tions tested; person prepared the who argument rule is The clear must fail. is charts available for cross examina although introduced a evidence tion; jury properly and the instruct only to the criminal trial should relate concerning ed their consideration prior specific charged, or subse offense charts. See also v. United Gordon quent may incidents be introduced es 858; States, 1971, 5 438 F.2d Cir. reg possessed a that a defendant tablish States, Baines v. United 426 Cir. knowledge or there uisite or intent 833; States, F.2d McDaniel v. United opera pattern, is a scheme of consistent denied, Cir. cert. tions, similarity of or method. It 15 L.Ed.2d Alston, States affirmatively appears these each Harrison, 5 United States v. 48. See also requirements satisfied, here so the course, Of 461 F.2d 1127. Cir. point must fail. See also Kroll v. Unit probative offered value States, infra, ed F.2d at 1289-1290. “system intent” must to show trial, At the close of the inflammation balanced judge prejudice excluded from the from the na evidence the result jury jury could take into the room a evidence offered. That bal ture of the Hughes ancing, however, largely chart that within had used as left “visual testifying.4 judge. aid” when We are uncer the sound discretion of the trial chart, Byrd, See, g., tain whether v. this was same e. United States regardless reading but of of whether there one Our 570. assignment two, chart of that no error instant record has convinced us fails tested when the aforemen abuse of discretion occurred when Hughes merely judge tioned authorities. below admitted evidence of similar first by ap stated in what the books re financial transactions conducted evidence pellants He summary flected. then his in in in based after the dates named properly technique in formation on dictment similar introduced evi- were colloquy leading ever, 3. The to the I do think that a chart or sum- introduction summary appears pages mary prejudicial of at 259-66 tend to be a unfair can transcript. reporter’s approach presentation of the in the of evidence in because once the chart received appears reality ruling page evidence, The court’s takes on a chart transcript: speak. own, of the its so I think chart “Counsel, position proper for I take a fair chart and chart chart, you prepared purposes closing argument. the board I think have jury approximately twenty-five has to the there it can be exhibited dif- twenty-five you jury argue to ferent dates and dif- can from about basically But, receiving entries, ferent all which chart. as far as are going fundamentally exhibit, I am in exhibits evidence as reflected an already it in are How- to receive evidence.” which evidence. Furthermore, objections for and method to transactions defense charged. appellants immediately which were both remarks were here en- sustained, tered. The first was sec- prompted prosecutor ond to discon- V. argument, tinue that line of no fur- Appellants’ error is an fifth appellants’ deciding ther mention of bring attempt their case within the Finally, was made. it must be prohibiting prosecutorial rule comments judge unequivocal- remembered that the testify. on the failure of the accused to ly give jury weight ordered the no See, California, 1967, g., Chapman e. appellants’ failing whatsoever to to take 17 L.Ed.2d stand; supra-, Chapman, in both 705; California, 1965, Griffin 380 U. Griffin, supra, judges trial them- S. 14 L.Ed.2d 106. selves referred to the defendants’ si- following Appellants excerpt cite the lence. Under the circumstances of this prosecutor’s closing argument from the case, being with each of these factors support proposition that their present, appel- we are unable to see how rights Fifth to decline to Amendment prejudiced by prosecu- lants were prejudiced: here tor’s remarks. “But, you I ask to look at the evi- dence, you what evidence have had? VI. they given you any evidence of Have Finally, appellants argue that their support motions to dismiss the indictments and “But, get trying we are the evi- acquittal a directed verdict should you dence as we see it and we are granted govern- have been because the trying stay the bounds of within ment’s use at the criminal trial of evi- But, saying, the law. it’s I was la- dence obtained at from the bank- gentlemen, dies and I’ve heard some- ruptcy proceedings constitutionally thing like fifteen witnesses take the appellant Goodwin, infirm. As to we stand, questioned them, I’ve defense disagree. appellant Nail, As however, attorneys questioned them, have we agree that the evidence should have introduced, had records I intro- been excluded. thirty-three, think, duced about I de- Appellants’ claims revolve around cer- attorneys one, fense introduced he had protective tain bankrupt- features of the opportunity an look at the cy During Shop, statutes. the Mr. Mod there, opportunity I had the to look at bankruptcy proceedings Inc. opportu- all had an evidence. We hearing both testified at a examination nity to look at the evidence.” 21(a). witnesses under 11 U.S.C. § reject the notion that Appellants claim that because the hear- prejudiced appellants. these remarks meeting awas continued first cursory reading Chapman Even a and creditors, immunity-granting provi- the prosecutorial will reveal that the Griffin 25(a) (10) sions of 11 U.S.C. bar use § comments there far exceeded the instant of the evidence that convicted them. remarks. The statements here chal simple. The issue is not so lenged analogous appropriately are more Setting A. The Factual States, to those in Kroll v. United denied, appears cert It U. to be uncontradicted that government’s S. 91 all of L.Ed.2d the evidence at the Cir, States, and Smith v. United criminal trial was derived from the firmly bankruptcy proceedings which testimony established but passing that a bankruptcy testimony reference to the fact that that none of the per Thus, legal “uncontradicted” is not itself was introduced. the prejudicial. se argot day, government the has appellants’ use” of tes- Mr. Summers: made “derivative timony. I think— don’t The Witness: nothing un- to have been There seems taking process anything do to actual This doesn’t have usual the about my testimony. find, Shop. for This is bankruptcy We with Mod personal— any mention of little example, reference to no own having granted ap- “immunity” been By the Referee: bankruptcy pellants Ev- referee. Nail, you were an officer Mrs. appel- appearance ery is that first-blúsh purpose corporation, voluntarily appeared testified. lants try ascer- is to this examination fact, bankruptcy seems, in It ownership this tain true little more of witnesses was examination automobile, not auto- whether or testimony-taking garden-variety than purchased with funds mobile however, points Appellant Nail, session. corporation, whether or not exchange insists to one that she estab- purchased estate was with real did lishes that she not voluntari- corporation. funds of the ly: The Witness: “Q you And realize Court not, absolutely. It was power subpoena has the By the Referee: if records to find bank out Well, your testimony correct, I that’s what don’t And think — establish, trying I you, Mrs. Nail? we’re questions are relevant think all A Yes. going you to ask answer I’m Q you. realize, not, you do And truthfully, questions I’m you’re if that we discover that not going you so. to order to do I mean you telling truth, you trying embarrass not we’re perjury in for this Court? liable get any way; trying we’re you that? Do understand that, you will real facts. If do

A I so. think us, cooperate I you if will with Q Now, your is it still right. everything all will be think you money took that out Mr. Summers: cash? coopera- objection to no have By Referee: tion, if remember she can’t but amount, exactly you take it out in cash ? did Did she what exact going it, to—She’s we’re with The Witness: it, can’t used she she’s testified personal Do these I have tell all exactly exactly who what — things myself? about to; paid she she testified she By the Referee: give it But the Goodwin. didn’t personal. talking— It’s not We’re [Attorney Mr. Summers Mr. The Witness: Shop, Goodwin and Mr. Mod Inc.]: might still it. I perjury. going I’m He’s mentioned Summers: Mr. object to instruct —to and instruct -just a minute— But is— grounds her answer it on the is, I think since Mr. don’t might it incriminate her. injected per- has the note of Friend By the Referee: relevancy gets jury it if off she’s— danger. just right to It has to a an inalienable be real She has She might say answer, it can’t incriminate her. to and on those refuse grounds— danger The must real. be 902 ther,” participants clearly

By the Referee: the other privilege. mentioned the Nail Mrs. questions rel- I have been think the easily having thought could evant. attorney privi- her brother’s mention the Mr. Summers: coupled ambiguous lege, with her own they’re long As relevant. as attempts testifying, to avoid suffi- was By the Referee: rights cient raise whatever she was They’re the issues. I’m relevant to entitled to claim. your objection going to overrule question The a con whether to answer.” order her privilege stitutional been has asserted argues Appellant from Nail aside depend should not on the claimant’s hav statutory immunity, her claim dis- precise legal phrase used arcane infra, colloquy cussed above reveals ology. laywoman, We deal here awith attempted she her Fifth assert eloquent lawyer not a skilled and versed privilege Amendment to decline to testi- in the subtle nuances of constitutional fy, overborne, that her and that will was Furthermore, it axiomatic that law. is any obtained, use of the evidence thus rights a waiver constitutional not is derivatively, even was unconstitutional. lightly implied, to be and it seems clear government The admits her claim attempt that even most feeble good if would be she forced to testi- privilege claim Fifth a Amendment must fy over an assertion of her Fifth recognized: right Amendment refuse to answer agreed by is “It all that a claim of argues but that no coercion here oc- privilege require any spe- does not curred. Plainly cial combination words. a dialogue view set out witness need not have the skill of a revealing laywoman above a who was lawyer protection invoke attempting to assert some articulated Self-Incrimination If an Clause. right answering ques to resist certain objection question is a made tions, interrupted, whip but who was language [questioner] may that a rea- sawed, finally ordered the bank sonably expected to understand as ruptcy questions referee to answer the privilege, attempt an to invoke it fully before she could set out her rea respected must be . wanting sons to answer. Al though it is uncontradicted that attor “. . . . But the fact a wit- ney representing Summers Mrs. expresses vague ness his intention examination, Nail at the we nonetheless long terms is immaterial so as the think his statements have some rele ap- sufficiently claim definite to analysis. vance to our The Fifth prise [questioner] of his inten- privilege Amendment decline testi everyone agrees, tion. As no ritualis- fy personal is said to be to the witness necessary tic formula order to only by See, and assertable the witness. privilege.” invoke the g., Ginsburg, e. United States v. 7 Cir. 1938, 882, Quinn denied, States, 1955, cert. 305 U.S. v. United 349 U.S. 81, 155, 162-164, 673-674, 396. But in L.Ed. determining whether has been assert 972-973. See Smith v. L.Ed. ed, States, 1949, entire context which the United spoke claimant Additionally, must be considered. S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 1264. Here, objections two requires intertwined this Court “[b]efore being legal compelled discussed: one relevance man can be himself, one and though Al constitutional dimension. he must have a fair chance right Mrs. Nail said in haec ver never exercise Fifth his ba, my “I States, wish to exercise Fifth Amend Amendment.” Brock United rights ment to decline to fur-

903 timony may given by precise of this as be him in the facts On the hearing upon objections his dis- case, Nail’s answers find that Mrs. we ” charge “compelled” . . . her from within the meaning Amendment the Fifth 25(a) amend.) (1970 11 U.S.C. [em- § testimony, any use of that therefore phasis appel- time But at the added]. improper derivatively, in the was even testified, immunity lants statute Although proceeding. our later criminal holding much narrower: government prevent the does (10) bankrupt “The . . shall . retrying Nail, no ob Mrs. evidence from creditors, meeting first his indirectly from the directly or tained compelled hearing objections, any, upon if at the against testimony may be used discharge other to his and at such any prosecution. her in See criminal order, as -the court shall submit times Blue, 1966, v. 384 United States concerning the con- to an examination 16 L.Ed.2d 510. ducting business, his the cause of dealings bankruptcy, his his his with Finding appellant Nail’s persons, creditors amount, kind, and other conviction rested on in evidence obtained his and whereabouts right violation of her Fifth Amendment and, addition, property, all matters in against self-incrimination, her convic may affect administration which Appellant tion be must reversed. Good or the of his estate and settlement win, however, having never his asserted discharge; tes- granting but no of his privilege, Fifth Amendment has no timony by given be him shall standing complain derogation offered against any crimi- him in in evidence rights, Bryson see, g., of Mrs. Nail’s e. testimony except proceeding such nal States, 1969, U.S.App.D.C. v. United 136 given may by hear- in the him as be 113, 419 F.2d 695. discharge objections upon to his yy' Statutory C. The Claim [empha- amend.) 25(a) (10) today 25(a) (1938 provides Section 11 U.S.C. § immunity: broad added]. sis bankrupt “The (10) shall . . . arguendo appel Assuming meeting at the creditors, first of his officers, lants, corporate claim can bankrupts hearing upon objections, at the any, if granted immunity limited discharge his and at such other statute, find nevertheless order, times as court shall submit prevail the stat they cannot concerning to an examination the con- ute. ducting business, of his the cause of remembered must be bankruptcy, dealings It his his with his utilized bankruptcy here persons, creditors and other appellant amount, Goodwin’s kind, not obtained and whereabouts of his the Fifth and, addition, property, assertion over an case all matters testify nor privilege not to Amendment which affect the administration an actual appellants’ case from and settlement of his or in either estate granting immunity. discharge; granting the stat Absent of his no tes- hut timony, no occasion any ute, or been evidence is di- which there would immunity any rectly indirectly derived whether such even to consider from re testimony, given by him It must shall existed. whatsoever of- part the Fifth him membered fered here con- proceeding, except such tes- we are criminal which Amendment with 264, 274; assumption lana, F.2d That is both correct and Cir. applicable Weissman, 2 Cir. facts of instant case United States entirely 837; People Lay, Compare Mich. In clear. re (1916). Co., Bush Terminal 159 N.W. with United States v. Castel 904 provides only person “No infirmity

cerned see no constitutional in the compelled Congress having by . shall be crim chosen the old ver- 25(a)(10) grant inal case a witness him only to be sion of section privilege very immunity self”. The waived if it be a limited to witnesses Monia, not is asserted. United States v. who fail to assert their Fifth Amend- 1943, 424, 409, rights formally 317 63 S.Ct. 87 L. ment U.S. and who have not Furthermore, undisputed granted promised any Ed. 376. it is been sort of immunity granted by immunity. that because the 25(a) (10) the old version section plain language The of the statute was immunity, complete protect not a those complied appli- with. We find that by ed it remained free to claim their appellants’ cation of the statute to case McCarthy privilege. Fifth Amendment was not unconstitutional and that there- Arndstein, 1924, 34, 266 U.S. 45 S.Ct. statutory immunity fore this claim must 16, person not 69 L.Ed. 158. If a chose Appellant fail. Goodwin’s conviction is Fifth,” to “stand he could claim on thus affirmed. only protection as much from use of the testimony itself adduced as the statute Appellant conviction, however, Nail’s granted. affirmative Absent some impermissibly through obtained granting immunity person tak use of evidence from obtained ing testimony, faced two witness compelled from her her assertion over alternatives older version Amendment, the Fifth her so conviction testify the statute: he could choose to must be reversed. We must never for- freely and then later claim whatever get that the Fifth Amendment is a sa- afforded; protection the or he statute privilege, cred and it not to defiled is be grounds could refuse to on the by requiring password use of a to cross sought might in the answers protective portals. its Its invocation criminating. raucously proclaimed need not be with any requisite number of It decibels. is entirely This would be an enough hearing person if the the testi- appellants appeal different case if mony message by receives whatever contempt from a citation entered form of transmission. upon ground refusal on the a part, part.6 Affirmed reversed in granted only “pure the statute use” immunity, rather than “use and deriva ON PETITION FOR REHEARING immunity tive use” or “transactional” AND PETITION FOR REHEAR- immunity. When the Amendment Fifth EN BANC ING asserted, only by it can overborne grant immunity a coextensive with PER CURIAM: scope privilege “pure itself — Rehearing immunity The use” Petition for would be insufficient. is Denied Judge Kastigar States, 1972, panel See no member of this nor 406 regular 441, 1653, 212; on the U.S. 32 L.Ed.2d active service Court having Jersey requested polled that the Zicarelli v. New State Comm. Court be rehearing (Rule bane, Investigation, on en Federal 92 S. Procedure; Local, Appellate Pic Rules Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d 234. also See York, 12) Fifth the Petition for cirillo v. 400 U.S. Circuit Rule New Rehearing But we L.Ed.2d 596. Denied. disposing appeal ruptcy 21.14, In not 1f1[ of this we have 21.15 at 313-19. See Miranda-type Deaton, considered warn whether United States v. ing might required have been at the bank 468 F.2d 541. The issue has been ruptcy proceeding appeal apparently examination of witness raised on and was presented Bankruptcy generally es. See on court below. Collier 1013-25; Bank 7.21 on Collier If

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Newt W. Goodwin and Kathleen L. Nail

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 15, 1973

Citation: 470 F.2d 893

Docket Number: 72-1882

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.