United States v. Raymond Robin

MOORE, Before TIMBERS GUR- FEIN, Judges. Circuit MOORE, Judge: Circuit Robin, Raymond age forty-eight at the sentence, a former and then retired time of bailbondsman, police officer and a licensed appeals jail (30) from a sentence of thirty plus probation imposed fines upon him after his a three him, (June 1974) against count indictment (1) conspiring to distribute narcot- charging of Title ics in violation U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (2) illegally 841(a)(1) and possessing distributing heroin on two separate March, occasions in in viola- During the fence tion Title U.S.C. Count Three § to run consecutively, totalling month that indicted in thirty (30) same years’ incarceration. Court for the $75,000 Federal District Southern totalling Fines imposed, also York, an indictment con- a special three'year District of special parole term substantially the taining same accusations was ordered to follow thirty-year term narcotics violations was handed down in of imprisonment. New York State Courts. Prior a sentencing, State Assistant being of his fully After warned constitu- Attorney District (Cunningham), who had rights, appellant arraignment investigated tional waived State charges against appel- understanding lant, indictments on the both on submitted letter to the Federal Dis- cooperate he with the federal Judge that would the subject trict on of the state in- (the Government) authorities perhaps and vestigation.3 A copy was sent to appel- agreement disposition reach lant’s privately-retained counsel.4 On the The federal indictment1 was morning case. ordered of sentencing, January year. and remained so for almost a sealed sought counsel access to the pre- unsealed, May, ap- In was ordered report5 which had been ordered after the became dis- parently Government prepared after appellant’s guilty plea. type cooperation with the of- satisfied permitted Counsel was to see the report appellant. Appellant was ar- fered before the commencement of proceedings at raigned June on A.M., in 1975 and released bail 10:00 prohibited but was taking from plea guilty. after not it out of judge’s chambers and from showing it to his client. November, appellant in petitioned In Federal District Court before District The proceeding was marked Judge Motley to withdraw his previously by repeated disputes between the Govern- guilty plead of not entered ment the appellant on underlying charged. The guilty plea was facts of case. Appellant offered a tape accepted objection over the court certain State Court exhibits to the Government, which wished to nolle to rebut the Government’s version of prosequi case, the case.2 surrounding facts but the Court refused to consider them.6

Appellant January 9, was sentenced on prison fifteen in on each The posture Government’s count, with the sentences in Counts appellant One was major was a heroin traf- concurrently Two to run and the sen- The ficker. Government did not rest this All 5. precise 1. references hereafter “indictment” There some confusion as to the occurred; indictment, however, to the federal hour when are unless otherwise apparently dispute Government does not noted. permitted defense counsel to examine the report only period brief of time immedi- apparently permit The Government wished to 2. ately preceding sentencing proceeding. Court, appellant prosecution in State proceedings which would be barred under state grounds clearly The for this refusal appellant if were tried federal law in court on stated the record. charges relating to the same transactions [Appellant’s “MR. COHEN . Counsel]: . subject incidents which were of the state your ought I think to have this before indictment. court you . you referring THE COURT: What are to? appellant maintains letter was tape COHEN: A MR. was made when 9, 1975. The dated December Government arrested, this defendant and an exhibit in any conflicting not offer date. does Judge the case held Denzer. COURT: What THE about it? Appellant’s trial counsel maintains MR. COHEN: indicates that before there office until De- letter was received thought being this defendant sen- tenced, cember did not see it until he Drug that officers of Administra- January very returned from a vacation on tion indicated this defendant had a Sentencing place January part drug took on small traffic in New York. Legislature York went State into charges appel- which effect on conclusion anybody but rather on which means that involved in guilty,7 pleaded actually lant the narcotics traffic after that date is was summarized material extrinsic a major on scale he is involved because Cunningham major you taking obviously risk to outline what letter, served of which both willing to in view of large take “expected prove” at tri- the Government money involved narcotics traf- sums Judge disclaimed District Although the al. fic.” Tr. at crimes allegations reliance could re- she concluded that she proven,8 Appellant timely appeal filed a notice of of the facts version ceive Government’s challenging Following the sentence. oral When the sentencing proceeding.9 argument, ordered sentence, she addressed pronounced part ap- be made of the record on as follows: part peal.10 Having examined the as well indicated, record, Robin, I have we “Mr. as the rest of believe that your involvement is that error committed the course Court convinced serious scale, major sentencing procedures was on a which man- narcotics after dates vacatur the sentence and resen- crime was committed this judge. before a different tencing very penalties enacted severe else, Judge, something Move on to I THE COURT: [Government]: MR. AMOROSA procedure. have Mr. object We not had Cohen. to this course, your Honor.” MR. COHEN: Of opportunity to look at this. an 9, proceedings January Transcript 1976 seen it either. I not THE have COURT: “Tr.”), (hereinafter cited 8-10. your Honor see I want to MR. COHEN: time he was then. At the said what your It is contention “THE COURT: transcript of the a Police is arrested —this heroin, actually possessed the is that it? produc- Department This was York. of New major A trafficker in her- MR. AMOROSA: hearings the New York held under ed oin. indictment. is shown to THE COURT: That his what, this To show MR. AMOROSA: and 3. 2 counts culpability? to does have What man’s AMOROSA: He did admit he was MR. knowledge respect to now with our do with major a dealer. that defendant? selling don’t THE COURT: You think your if I show Honor will MR. COHEN: major? kilo of heroin is half a question. is the Judge, it is We MR. AMOROSA: relative. Judge, this is in na- MR. AMOROSA: people that sold kilos of have 140 have summation, your I Honor heroin, ask ture and we consider those violators. government be allowed to consider it to have admitted in substance [sic] defendant heroin, selling facilitating look it. or a kilo right, Mr. I think that THE COURT: the sale of multiki- this defendant facilitated this not know what document I do Cohen. los— now, you is, going read it so I cannot sentence him for and I am THE COURT: of. he has not convicted it back. matters can take that, your I AMOROSA: We understand But tell Honor that MR. MR. COHEN: your like Honor to take into con- transcript we would that this defendant indicates say what we have to also.” sideration time of that he was at the his arrest was told drug Tr. part being arrested traffic. 7, supra. 8. Note to do with these THE That has COURT: charges? Tr. at does, ma’am, absolutely. MR. COHEN: posture within the Delaney, U.S.App. it to do And United States v. drug (1971). much has been about which so traffic 442 F.2d Since D.C. report appellant personal- the memorandum. made in was not disclosed compelled ly, preserve ask I am camera MR. AMOROSA: have examined it in disregard confidentiality. opinion, your express this unless no how- ever, government respecting the district court’s refusal a full permit appellant it, assuming it. explain to examine is so. behalf and to present any not gener information Criminal sentences mitigation punishment.” However, ally in this Circuit.11 reviewable authority does have the to re this We have held defendant cir under certain limited sentences view be permitted must to state his version of court; is a possibility12 Where there the facts to the where the cumstances. possibility shown, reliance on imposed on misinformation is the basis of that sentence right must permit be extended to pre assumptions or false con information false sentation defendant which will en defendant, appeal cerning the will lie to able the judge grasp the rele will Court and be vacated. correctly. vant facts United States v. Nee misunderstanding or “Misinformation dles, (2d 472 F.2d 1973); Cir. see regarding pri- that is untrue materially also, Rollerson, record, or material as criminal false United States v. as to facts relevant sumptions Powell, 325, 329 (4th In entire sentencing, renders the circumstances, appropriate this may mean procedure invalid as a violation due permitted will that a defendant to sub Burke, process.” Townsend U.S. documents,13 mit affidavits or supply oral L.Ed. 1690. S.Ct. statements,14 or even participate in an evi Malcolm, dentiary hearing;15 alternatively, further (2d of sentencing corroboration may data required.16 And while in such cases the Accord, Herndon, procedure to be followed lies within the (2d 1975); Cir. United States v. Nee- 208 sound discretion of the sentencing judge, a dles, 652, (2d 1973). 657 472 F.2d Cir. court’s failure to take appropriate steps to 32(a)(1) Rule of the Federal Rules of ensure fairness accuracy and of the Procedure (Rule) provides in perti- Criminal sentencing process must be held to plain be part nent that: error and an abuse of that discretion. imposing “Before sentence the court shall reports, Presentence prepared by proba speak afford counsel an on tion officers for use at sentencing,17 often behalf of the defendant and shall address call for an exercise of the Court’s discretion personally the defendant and ask him if regard. in this reports contents of the he wishes to make a statement in his own subject are not to the rules evidence,18 13. United States v. 11. 12. 542 judge’s remarks in whether he taint after the far more serious count vacated However, certain factors indicate that process illegally brought. “Here quite probable. setting [Accordingly], we have Actual reliance need not be shown: See, (2d some 243, [vacated] improbable Cir. e. s}; States, g., 248 sentence on counts 2 extent affected is 1975); Counts impossible ^[*] (2d respect conviction fact cause remanded.” Cir. McGee v. United Needles, supra, ^[*] least v. imposing To to the valid counts was 1972). the initial determined purge ^[*] determine from the under count part States, ^[*] conviction influenced the order which was through States, McGee that it 527 F.2d possible ^[*] this . 462 is 16. United States v. 14. 15. implicitly Cal. 395 U.S. States, S.Ct. Farrow v. United ed procedure. Ibid. In United See, States evidentiary hearing upon resentencing (2d 497 F.2d Gregg F.R.Crim.P. Cir. acknowledged 22 L.Ed.2d 442 Gorden, 1973), States v. United 89 S.Ct. See, 156, States, Needles, supra, this Court declined to order 32(c). 495 F.2d v. also Shelton v. United Rosner, States, (5th (1969), availability F.Supp. 23 L.Ed.2d 394 U.S. 485 F.2d reh. 472 F.2d of such denied, 1213, (S.D. Unit- be dealt with in the possible harshest shown experience terms’.” sentencing judges.19 upon heavily relied prime concern. therefore Accuracy is concern, defendants have Reflecting this have able “Here the defendant did greater increasingly access given counsel, but unless counsel conscientious point out in order reports presentence adequate opportunity to cor- given 32(c)(3)(A) mandates Rule inaccuracies. any misinformation in the prosecu- rect sen report memorandum, disclosure tor’s doubt —save request of the upon comment before sentence spontaneous

tence recommendation— only adequate to afford the defendant; may be withheld defendant his disclosure 1230 (quotation due.” the defendant will if rehabilitation original). marks likely or harm is thereby jeopardized, or others. to the defendant result present Much same can be said in the respect to the case with effectively enable a defendant To prosecuting The Government and itself. court of the facts his version present urging authorities state presen- out inaccuracies pointing permits,22 law harshly be treated defendant have held that a report, we tence largely alleged on the basis of information adequate prepare time to given must appellant’s guilty was extrinsic to a rebuttal to information present plea. A memorandum letter form from Rosner, 485 In United contests.21 Cunningham had been the sen- submitted (2d 1973), defense counsel court, and defense tencing counsel unsuc- shown) copy (and was requested adjournment of cessfully sought an sentenc- morning of sen- ing prepare a rebuttal.23 in order On time, also tencing. same the court At the day sentencing, appellant’s counsel was prosecutor’s to counsel a available made presentence report. We have ex- in aid prepared memorandum camera, report in need amined ade- the defendant lacked held that say lengthy it contains detailed prepare a rebuttal and opportunity quate by appellant of activities the recital attempts well-meant counsel’s defense others, extensive in addition to information sentencing could not cure at rebut personal life. It appellant’s would about defect. impossible for counsel to have read virtually sentencing] very when within a short morning report carefully “[The] [of time, digested let alone to have space defense counsel . chief satisfactory prepared a rebuttal. prosecutor’s memoran- was shown the dum, adjournment so that he asked for an importance presentence report The have ‘an answer he could Cunningham memorandum in this and the had Although defense counsel them.’ overemphasized particular case cannot be possibly time to review or even had no plea guilty. appellant’s view of hith- separate seventeen incidents absorb prevented judge trial from absence him, request for an unfamiliar to erto familiarity with the case acquiring adjournment of sentence denied. frequently aids im- the defendant Attorney Moreover, measurably United States The Assistant deprived ‘Mr. of the benefit of strong judge Rosner also then made a Malcolm, States, 1103; See, v. United Shelton at 524 F.2d supra F.2d 818. F.2d 159-160. g., Compare, 32(c)(3) e. F.R.Crim.P. g., Tr. at 41. e. and as amended in amended counsel, 23. Affidavit of defendant’s trial Mr. Rosner, supra at 485 F.2d 21. Cohen, appellant’s reply brief. submitted Hermann, Cir., supra, 2 defense of wit counsel’s cross-examination counsel’s failure adjournment seek an trial, presentation of of sentencing.28 nesses and evidence at But such is not the case here, cor and we both of which invaluable means of believe that the repeated ob- jections may pro recting inaccuracies that later be to every cing.24 major allegation court, raised pounded at senten Government, and the State prosecutors trial, Without of a the sen- benefit (who appeared at the sentencing proceeding tencing judge necessarily heavily leaned actually addressed court), should report Cunningham and the have alerted the sentencing judge to the concerning letter as sources of information necessity of permitting a further and more appellant’s alleged behavior and crimi- capable explication by the appellant. This acts. nal This borne out the court’s especially true in view of the harsh sen- concerning appellant’s major conclusions in- tence obviously contemplated by court, trafficking25 volvement in narcotics a factor which should have made the court which the profits court believed he de- still more sensitive to the need for a careful Appellant’s rived therefrom. blanket deni- into inquiry accuracy the information als of financial affluence were given no before it.29 The Court’s failure to address consideration, and his counsel’s similar deni- any serious consideration to appellant’s ob- proof als and affirmative regarding offer jections and proof offer was, in the spe- degree appellant’s of involvement26 with cial case, circumstances of this an abuse of similarly narcotics were met summary discretion amounting plain error. rejection.27 Throughout the sentencing The court presumably in posses proceeding, appellant’s counsel con- vainly sion of time veracity picture tested of the overall appellant’s requested counsel an ad appellant’s involvement as chronicled journment on the basis of the Cunningham presentence report Cunningham letter. Appellant letter. maintains that the court question can There be no refused discuss the matter coun time allotted to counsel was in- sel and instead denied the request summaril permit sufficient adequate study of y.30 In view of the contents of report, presentence report, particularly in view of unique importance to the sentenc the fact permitted that counsel was not ing process of both the letter and the re show the client. Had the port, we believe that this summary denial preceded by a trial on the was reversible error. Appellant was enti merits, this error might have been waived tled to preparation reasonable time to rebut argument “Williams’ second is that sentence was based on incorrect facts is provide meaningful clearly court failed to ‘a chance therefore rebutted.” United States v. Battle, reliability to test (5th of the information 467 1972) (em- F.2d Cir. sentencing’ phasis supplied). which is to be used in because evidentiary hearing. there was no But opinion supra. 25. See counsel had earlier cross-examined of two witnesses, government’s trial and Wil- 7, supra. 26. Note request gave hearing liams’ failure to a suspect court no reason to that he wished Ibid. opportunity.” United States Wil- such an v. liams, (1st 1974) (foot- 499 F.2d Cir. See, Green, United States v. 483 F.2d omitted). Moody, F.2d United States v. Robin for same narcotics offenses for 688, which he was indicted in the federal court. it, although giving lip majority, service to 2. The Partridge, Circuit Sentenc- The Second See totally ignore proceeds to the rule which then Orland, A-18; (1974) Study in ing Justice public policy deeply in and has been rooted (1974) Sentencing at 157-198. by Supreme uniformly adhered imposed a federal that “a sentence and ours limits, judge, statutory hearing began gen- if within A.M. on The sentence subject erally 9, January until review.” United States v. It continued the noon Tucker, accord, (1972); 404 U.S. 2 P.M. continued It resumed at recess. States, Dorszynski v. United 418 U.S. imposed later in after- was until sentence States, (1974); v. United 357 U.S. Gore noon. during lengthy client given sufficient time to sentence was not hearing.5 defense Fourth, Judge Motley made presentence report. crystal examine clear hearing outset of the throughout squarely record is to the contrary. imposing in sentence she would confine charges to the in the herself indictment place, objection no was made In the first pleaded guilty; specifical- had which Robin Judge Motley of insufficient time judge repeatedly stated that report and no re- ly, she presentence examine take into consideration other would adjournment of was for an quest set forth in the presentence report, matters purpose examining made for it.3 including “other crimes which may have was made Second, presentence report committed the defendant .... available entirety in its Robin’s crimes, If he is of some other Third, presentence attorney.4 report this, me.”6 used not before To defense extensively by attorney Robin’s in was responded, glad “I’m Judge your counsel hear Motley on behalf of his plea to munti, nied, counsel States, Indeed Cunningham (1958); 423 U.S. 832 1351 Cir. unsuccessfully sought (2 majority in order to letter. (1975); states prepare a United States v. Tra (2 McGee v. United (2 Cir.), Wiley, that “defense adjournment rebuttal” to cert. de 5. With record presentence presentence Honor address see that this “MR. COHEN shows respect please, to myself to some of the report report. to defense morning (Tr. 2-3). ^[*] following: at the sentence [Robin’s begin ^[*] I had an ^[*] with would like to counsel’s use attorney]: I opportunity matters in the hearing, If your presentence request On an individual basis the adjournment Even this for an does port you age has shown this man appear at the in the 'record certified to this Court. any compulsion and not appears only seventeen under an affidavit Robin’s dis- voluntarily enlisted in the United reply trict court counsel attached to Robin’s Navy. eighteenth birthday On his “My purpose brief in which he was in states that is to Philippines, the fields of the and served his enough make clear herein that I did not have country throughout honor, time adequately time and many conclusiory (sic) meet the discharge. received an honorable hearsay statements Thereafter, probation report shows, as the Cunningham’s (em- contained Mr. letter." Honor, your policeman added). the man phasis was a complained Counsel never city worked Despite and state of presentence time to insufficient report. York. examine the suggestions again pre- various memorandum, your Honor will note letter, Cunningham As for the Robin’s coun- probation officer from the official that it was received in his sel concedes office your has indicated record and tells before the two weeks date your during and informs Honor that performed not once but service twice he Cunningham appeared And of course himself meritoriously enough for commendation. hearing at the sentence where he was available dealing We are with that kind of man in questioning defense counsel who chose public going service. I am not to detail the question him. not to family background. Your Honor has all of that, but is the kind of man we are repeated majority opin- 4. The references in the talking about. A man who has never been presentence report ion to fact that the anything, getting convicted of not even client”, to defense counsel (Tr. 11). but not “to his ticket.” traffic F,2d 777, 781, appear suggest defense understandably Of course counsel something presentence wrong proce- report. made selective use with that there itself major- But that belies the 32(c)(3), assertion of the dure. Amended Fed.R.Crim.P. how- ity “the time allotted to ever, counsel governs presen- disclosure of the permit adequate study insufficient report tence and 1975, became effective on just December one month before the never, time, Appellant’s any counsel imposed, expressly sentence was instant states court, any made such claim. than five times that no less Motley’s shall be made available to “the ruling defend- imposing sen- counsel”, added). (emphasis tence charges or his would confine herself ant she to the sentence, expect, one would before tion your Honor has that because say extraordinary remedy the ordering ...” the rule on articulated not sentencing judge, the defense was different that the claim Finally, pre- upon showing time examine order based such given sufficient major- ground prejudice against for the of such bias or record sentence —the vacating from impos- sentence —aside decision render it difficult or ity’s defendant raised in having been judge fairly impartially never sible for by appel- court, has not been raised likewise duty which she took the oath perform in his or in oral either briefs appeal on lant years ago perform. ten There than more argument. showing of a in this record a scintilla not is any prejudice, bias or and the ma- such short, ground upon

In ma- to none. points jority jority’s decision is based must be viewed inescapable The conclusion therefore precisely ground for what it is: a never be resen- direction by appellant or claimed his counsel in the judge before a different further con- tenced or on appeal; district court ground totally my belief stated above that the true firms of any record; devoid support in the but a majority's vacating decision reason for ground nevertheless relied major- majority simply is that this sentence ity as a vehicle not expressing its particular severity like “the does not “concern” particular for “the severity imposed”. With which was defer- sentence vacating sentence” it. ence, precisely me as the sort of strikes appel- which is none of our review sentence enough were not compel If this me to business. late dissent, there is one other matter. Without emphat- but most respectfully slightest it, basis I therefore justify record to ically dissent. majority has directed that “resentenc- judge”. 545 be before a different ing will majority characterizes

F.2d preferred practice “the

this as in such “preferred” What is Id. course

cases”. subjective judgment. I supposed had

is a extraordinary remedy directing proceedings place on remand take be- judge another should be reserved for

fore extraordinary my view, case. In imposi- such a case. In context of York, (1949); U.S. 241 pleaded v. Williams had to which Robin the indictment prior which the defendant crimes of ruling of course was more Cifarelli, convicted, States v. United to which he to him than favorable denied, Cir.), (2 cert. 393 U.S. 987 sentencing F.2d have held that “[a] entitled. charges (1968); without a dismissed deter be almost judge’s to information should access merits, Doyle, States v. may United mination completely in order unfettered Hendrix, generally supra. States v. See United thorough acquaintance with the ‘acquire a 197"), (2 cert. de history 1235-36 505 nied, man before [him].’ character (1975). Hays’ (2 See U.S. 897 Doyle, v. States United summary denied, of these authorities X), of some (Friendly, 382 U.S. 843 Cir.) cert. may such matters for the rule that Schipani, rationale (1965).” denied, be considered 1970), (2 and should cert. U.S. “very judge broad discre “may in the exercise and should court (1971). A imposing within the statu tion admissible that would matters consider Sweig, tory Sweig, trial,” limits.” aat including hearsay, 1972), at 183-84. (2 Oklahoma, (1959); 358 U.S. 576 Wiliiams notes 1973). (10th Cir. “Regarding allegation the unex- pected sentence resulted from in- erroneous Brown, supra, States 29. United v. at 470 F.2d presentence report, the Trial formation in the Compare, Murphy, United States v. findings affirmatively Court’s of fact estab- (5th 1974); United States v. Cir. Rollerson, lish the District Court was ‘well aware also, presen- Needles, before errors in supra, United States v. investigation report, tence and the Court 472 F.2d 658-659. “kingpin” knew that defendant was a Any suggestion in the narcotics trade.’ is not This denied the Government. TIMBERS, Judge (dissenting): the letter. There Circuit contained in material request was indication no appellate review is of our Sentence none reasonable; contrary, on the than other business. of the re- support the reasonableness facts Today’s majority decision is the most un- quest. warranted interference with a conscientious inescapable that conclusion is The judge’s imposition of sentence with- severely impaired was sentenc- prescribed by Congress limits that I was inadequate preparation that ing by more than have seen in sixteen Moreover, it is wholly beyond his control. federal bench. appellant’s repeated and un- clear from Raymond Robin —whose underworld code objections (both personally and equivocal caught name is “Railroad” or “RR” —was counsel) veracity of through the sen- selling kilograms red-handed one-half question re- tencing data that a serious during two heroin on occasions a six day accuracy raised. For these was specting period in March 1974. A retired New York vacated, a the sentence must reasons police bondsman, City officer and bail resentencing ordered. Follow- for remand to three pleaded guilty counts violation cases, practice such preferred ing narcotics federal laws. He never a resentencing different will be suggested that he did not said commit judge.31 He has the offenses. never indicated a imposed was sentence Since day-long scintilla of remorse. After sen- maximum, statutory we cannot within hearing,1 tence he was sentenced legali question a serious as its entertain Motley pris- to two-thirds the maximum However, inappropriate it is not ty was penalty provided Congress; or- concern, note, some $75,000 dered pay committed fine —the the sentence which particular severity of maximum; ordered to serve a imposed in The imposition this case.33 parole upon his special three term year prison sentence on thirty-year this now prison. lease from year offender forty-nine old first is tanta majority candidly concedes Recognizing to a life sentence. mount particular severity like “the does not disparities in sentences exist substantial was imposed in this case.” sentence are serious concern to at 782. Reaching deep 545 F.2d down into judicial system,34 involved in the those justify rationalization to bag for a its its when a especially concerned harsh sen imposed within statuto- vacating a imposed upon questionable so tence limits,2 majority comes ry up with the in this case. existed foundation decision, assertion, the basis its and remanded. Vacated Rosner, Both sides were States a full United to be Brown, heard. There no pre- United States v. curtailment of the (2d sentation either side. Both Robin attorney length. govern- heard On the Tramunti, side, 32. United in addition ment to the Assistant United Driscoll, (2d Attorney, United States v. judge briefly States heard from States, supra. supra; Cunningham, McGee Esq. Sterling David F. John- son, prosecutors Esq., the two who had been in Driscoll, supra, at 496 See charge prosecution of the New York State

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Raymond Robin

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Oct 15, 1976

Citation: 545 F.2d 775

Docket Number: 951, Docket 76-1033

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.