*1 dismissing the court judgment of the district
petition.
AFFIRMED. America,
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee, SLIGH,
Vaughn Monroe Defendant-
Appellant.
No. 97-4284. Appeals,
United States Court
Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 1998. April
Decided
762 plea agreement,
Sligh then into entered the preserved right appeal dis- which entrapment ruling and the trict court’s evidentiary ruling, which court’s related presenting the barred defense agent’s at a the attendance brib- about IRS training and ery seminar and her awareness bribery. The court sentenced experience in imprisonment. five Sligh to months Schulman, Levy, Harry ARGUED: reasonably jury conclude Because a could Gilden, Baltimore, Treem, P.A., & Kaminkow by entrapped agent the IRS was Hamel, MD, Appellant. for William Warren dealt, Sligh was entitled to the with whom he Baltimore, Attorney, United States Assistant requested. Ac- entrapment instruction MD, Kenneth Appellee. for ON BRIEF: W. cordingly, vacate convictions we Schulman, Ravenell, Levine, Andrew H. pro- for further remand to district court the Gilden, Baltimore, Treem, P.A., Kaminkow & ceedings. MD, Lynne Battaglia, Appellant. for A. Baltimore, MD, Attorney, for United States
Appellee. I. LUTTIG, Judge, Circuit Before entrapment An defense has two el PHILLIPS, Judge, and Circuit Senior government inducement and the ements: MORGAN, Judge District United States predisposition lack of to commit defendant’s Virginia, sitting by Eastern District of
the Daniel, crime. United States v. 3 the See designation. Cir.1993). (4th 775, Entrapment 778 F.3d defense, and the defendant an affirmative by published Reversed and remanded “produce more than has the initial burden to majority opinion. Judge the LUTTIG wrote government of evidence that the scintilla joined. opinion, in Judge which MORGAN offense,” charged him to commit the induced dissenting Judge Senior PHILLIPS wrote id., govern shifts to the before the burden opinion. prove beyond a ment to reasonable doubt predisposed to com that the defendant was OPINION Jones, crime, United States v. 976 mit the LUTTIG, Judge: Circuit Cir.1992) (4th 176, (noting 179 F.2d $7,000 has “his initial Vaughn Sligh paid a once a defendant met burden Defendant M. government change presenting evidence that the to an debt IRS crime, status, gov commit the thereafter induced him to to “uncollectible” was proving ‘beyond bribery, illegal ernment the burden of payment of an has indicted the defendant was gratuity, with the adminis- reasonable doubt and interference prior criminal act disposed Revenue Laws. At commit the tration of the Internal trial, being approachеd Government paying the bribe to first admitted to ” States, (quoting agents’ employee, but offered the defense of Jacobson United the IRS 549, 1535, 1540-41, 112 opening After 503 U.S. S.Ct. entrapment in his statement. (other (1992)) government’s L.Ed.2d 174 citations evidence and 118 the close omitted)); (but Singh, United prior case see also States most of the defense after (4th Cir.1995) (“[T]he testimony), 1189 de the defense F.3d defendant’s produce ‘sufficient evidence in- fendant must sought ruling as whether the court entrapment. jury reasonable could find’ jury on from which a tended to instruct government induced him to commit not entitled to that the The court ruled was omitted)). (citation A charged offense.” entrapment there was defense because to an jury defendant is not entitled from which a insufficient evidence this initial unless he can meet government inducement. 327- instruction find producing gov- burden of some evidence implanted design the criminal States inducement. See United ernment Cir.1991). (4th mind, and, Osborne, to realize F.2d a deliberate effort design implanted, agency it overreached “ is a term of art: ‘Inducement’ degree to a that it must bе a manner and over governmental involves elements government said that victim of *3 sufficiently excessive to reaching and conduct entrapment. design in the mind of an implant a criminal Solicitation, by party. innocent otherwise II.
contrast, opportunity an to provision of Daniel, 3 F.3d at commit a criminal act.” Sligh had numerous contacts conversa- omitted). (citation showing A of mere day tions with the IRS before the on which to mer government solicitation is insufficient subject he offered the bribe which is the solici it an instruction “because appeal. initial this After conversations with of conduct that by itself is not the kind tation agents, Sligh’s primary con- two other IRS person an innocent persuade otherwise O’Neill, Nancy manager of tacts were with crime, that would be ‘so to commit a or group in the Automated Collection Balti- likely reasonably person firm to a as indueive 1996, May 16 more. Between and June ” Osborne, at rea.’ displace to mens times, Sligh spoke five some- with O’Neill omitted). (citations long times for as as hour. principles, we believe Applying these conversations, During Sligh these told jury readily conclude that the IRS a could complete that he intended to and file O’Neill and in line solicitation crossed the between returns, and O’Neill established a with the defen in its interactions ducement 57-59, for him to do so. J.A. at 96. deadline dis telephone conversations dant. From the levy Sligh and discussed a the IRS O’Neill below, jury could find that the IRS cussed a account, Sligh’s placed on bank numer- provide Sligh to with even agent first refused Sligh ous letters had sent to the IRS re- rudimentary concerning the information why questing explain the IRS he was reduction which agency’s guidelines on debt taxes, obligated pay possibility to and the enabled him to evaluate whether would have outstanding through a payment of taxes relief, forcing him thus to he was entitled to equity 95-96. home loan. J.A. game her as to whether play guessing with Sligh They possibility also discussed him relief entitle his circumstances would might money might be entitled to not owe that, It could find agency’s under the rules. that, refund, and stated under those O’Neill agent’s efforts to character despite the IRS circumstances, removing she would consider necessarily questions uninformed ize levy account. J.A. at bank wrongdoing, offers of was Sligh she had advised 98-99. O’Neill herself, actually initiated the agent who levy power remove the on his account. wrongdoing. It could further suggestion of at 99. agent’s repeatedly ignored the Sligh find that agent wrongdoing, but that the invitations of these conversa- Sligh initiated several baiting Sligh. persisted in her nevertheless tions, update prog- on his calling to O’Neill Sligh reasonably find that when It could also On completing his tax returns. June ress agent’s accept the overtures still did not 4, 1996, request some Sligh called O’Neill to introduced, well, wrongdoing, his return. in order to file additional forms And, finally, the of a bribe. specific idea 6, 1996, Sligh contacted J.A. at 61. On June ignore jury find that continued could briefly to inform spoke with her O’Neill bribery until invitations to even these official re- completed his 1995 tax her that he had offered. the moment the bribe was dol- he owed several thousand turn and that On June in 1995 taxes. J.A. at 102-03. lars findings, jury in turn upon these Based 13, 1996, for a fifth Sligh spoke O’Neill with did reasonably conclude that the IRS could time to file his requested additional oppor- time provide Sligh with an much more than granted him a short exten- O’Neill to which he was returns. tunity for criminal conduct 104-06. 1996. J.A. at sion to June It conclude that the IRS predisposed. bribe, many O’Neill later during O’Neill these con- O’Neill admits testified: offer bribe, my spine knew versations, Sligh sug- offer a “a went because did not chill down bribe, going try to willing point or in gest he was at that ” something. any way J.A. at 105. Nor do Id. allude a bribe. wrong- allude other form only upon Sligh’s question whether Based fact, that, during doing. In O’Neill testified part to take сare of power O’Neill had the time, endeavoring Sligh was this she believed existing asked she could returns. complete his tax immediately then con- call back. She And, indeed, all evidence indicated Office, Investigation tacted the IRS Internal missing and ar- to file his returns intended listening placed a device which range payment. telephone arranged for her to make a *4 day. Then, Sligh call to later that J.A at recorded on June O’Neill at bribery 70-71. IRS awareness course. tended an at J.A. 106.* later, During the recorded conversation later, days Sligh telephoned Ten O’Neill day, Sligh to confirmed that same O’Neill conversation, And, again. again, in this sixth power that the to take care of she have to, offer, Sligh less did not even allude much part of the debt under certain circumstances: fact, a bribe O’Neill. In in this conversa- to uh, adjust your “I to balance power have the tion, gone Sligh that he had informed O’Neill criteria, I need due under certain a rea- Baltimore; he that had to IRS office in Upon son.” at 482. this confirmation J.A. preparing tax his re- obtained assistance Sligh did offer a power, O’Neill’s not turns; provide he O’Neillwith that wanted apparently expected he O’Neill had would. completed forms for information from the Rather, attempt in an to offer reasons that 1990, 1991, 1994; he taxes for and owed bring agency’s guide- would him within the years; all of those and that three reduction, explained Sligh lines debt for
mailing the tax returns. J.A. at 155- timely response to his he had not received 57. pay to the and he wanted to letters IRS he owed. J.A. at 482-83. about half what days later, Sligh again called O’Neill Threе legal options explained two for O’Neill then time requested and a short extension of for reducing Sligh what owed the IRS —offer filing that he could investi- his 1994return so compromise penalty abatement re- and moving expenses gate possible deduction. quests that she would need “reason- call, During this re- J.A. at 163-64. O’Neill —and option. pursue either J.A. at able cause” and viewed financial statement calcu- variety Sligh 483. offered a of reasons that figure Sligh monthly payment lated a reduced, including his debt should be work pay off tax J.A. at 64-68. Thе his debt. racism, stress, and his lack of informa- white approximately lasted hour. conversation system at tion about how the worked. J.A. 68,163-64. At end of conver- J.A. responded that she under- 483-85. O’Neill sation, Sligh if he had O’Neill asked help, and stood his situation and wanted O’Neill, According questions. J.A. 68. reason”; way or she stated “I need some Sligh how “lowered voice asked racism explained also that reasons like were power replied, Id. much do I have.” O’Neill as the “official reason.” going not to “cut it” mean?”, do J.A. at “[W]hat at 485. asked, part care of it?” take “[C]an Id. conversation, and Throughout this indeed this, all her with although Sligh nothing throughout conversations
At had said Sligh Sligh, from infor- person O’Neill withheld prompt at all a reasonable permit that would him make an offering about to mation that he was conclude mind, regarding is of obvious relevance to an this evidence *The court excluded evidence district government's bribery objective at the awareness interac O'Neill’s attendance evaluation of training experience her in iden Sligh, seminar and of this tion with the еxclusion Because, apart tifying bribery attempts. its error. was in agent's subjective state of relevance to the IRS you give guidelines me the and I can work he had a as to whether decision informed guidelines.” those Id. fit out a reason within his debt that would reduction of reason for Indeed, re- guidelines. O’Neill within sugges- Despite initiation of the what Sligh any guidance about give fused depart ask her to from the tion that legitimate or sufficient were sort of reasons so, merely do guidelines, did not thus, continued guidelines. under might satisfy continued to offer rеasons reducing variety of reasons to offer a guidelines which refused even to O’Neill debt, apparently fit within of which none And, although Sligh him. describe to including the fact that guidelines, the IRS nothing other than ask O’Neill to exer- done his letters not answered the IRS had power possessed she to reduce cise whatever taxes, had a pay that he why he had to knowing what attempt, his tax debt and not college, put through daughter he needed to were, guidelines provide her with the IRS’ hard-working. at 486- and that he was so, doing per- legitimate rеasons for O’Neill (or suggestion Sligh might in her sisted Eventually, should) to offer rea- continued something unautho- ask her to do justify might possibly reason that son after rized: initi- or waiver of his reduction unfortunately, ... based on Sligh might ask her suggestion that ated a me, any- you’ve really told there’s *5 wrongdoing by departing engage in thing I do. can guidelines required:
what the saying Sligh: (Sighs) You’re there’s noth- to cut legitimate reason I need a O’Neill: you ing can do. [your] in half. balance Not, not for those reasons. O’Neill: Yes, Sligh: ma’am. Sligh: you’re saying the reasons Hum. So Unless, asking me to you’re [do] O’Neill: guide- gave you I are not within the what something Is otherwise. you? you have before lines that asking? you’re Right. O’Neill: added). response In to (emphasis at 496 you’re saying. Sligh: That’s what a presumably believed was di- what O’Neill conclud- she had rect solicitation O’Neill: Yes. her, only Sligh offer said Sligh intended to ed liberty you’re not at to Sligh: Okay. But following: guidelines are? tell me what the Well, you’re what able Sligh: I don’t know No, I have to do it based I mean O’Neill: don’t, I know what Really, I don’t to do. me, you giving you tell not me on what You know? you’re able to do. you me to wantеd guidelines, unless reason. anything within I can do O’Neill: deviate. ma’am. Sligh: Yes added). (emphasis at 501 JA. Id. bait, Still, agent’s rather than take urged to do had been almost as if she Then know, for, “Well, you simply replied, Sligh improper induce- suggestion a so to avoid matter, know, (Laughter) if it you it’s say ment, to not corrected herself O’Neill care, know, you deviates, you I don’t I don’t reason, anything within but could do that she know,” appears to re- .—an answer that id reason, reduce in order to she needed a Sligh’s understandable no more than flect sorry, I “Oh, sorry, I’m аnd I’m debt: ease, whether, in to his indifference as mean, I a reason.” Id. misspoke, I need guidelines, which followed the technical IRS Still, suggested much as Sligh even as never him, explain to even to refused simply He wrongdoing, much less a bribe. exception for made an him. him tell request that O’Neill repeated his point that can’t, Obviously at this “Well, aware see I guidelines were: what the to offer a bribe reason, know, apparent no intention my you my you but give I can in steer- having no success that she was your guide- just might not fit within reason bribe, O’Neill ing the оffer of you, him toward So, saying I’m guess I what lines. Well, jail, go to too. asking I could explicitly by then a bribe O’Neill: invited more essence, Sligh, in in me?”: it for “What’s Ma’am, say I anything you would Sligh: agree "with. would why O’Neill: I risk? But take that huhn. O’Neill: Uh Sligh: (Laughter) love me? Cause know, mean, you’ know, You I don’t know. I thing I So, only have Sligh: know what— me, right now. That’s you and God I That’s it. all have. my job. risking O’Neill: I’d be Yeah, I, take I mean can’t added). (emphasis Id. that kind of risk. suggest- At point, this had still never added). (emphasis at 506-07 wrong- engage ed that O’Neill sort of doing, finally appears have suggested point, much less that he would Sligh, this Nеvertheless, suggestion offer a contin- bribe. to O’Neill’s assented least fact, had, though Sligh justify reducing ued to his act as reason to up she make much, already given any suggested stated he still had her to do he intended “[wa]sn’t whatsoever that indication really Despite Indeed, right.” J.A. at 503. O’Neill con- her a when offer bribe. entirely explicit taking recharacterization she not think tinued state that her, appropriate request guidance a re- rather than the “risk” was worth quest wrongdoing engage that she her to make it “worth” her a bribe bribe, again while, accept proffered Sligh yet only attempted appeal she instead sympathies by urging resisted O’Neill’s overtures continued her her meet with try family. her to reduce balance J.A. at 507-10. convince him and citing might he believed be other reasons extraordinary step O’Neill then took legitimate, like the fact that house and the further agreeing meet with *6 grew up in lost to taxes. Id. was refusing extraordinary step of to allow present, explaining, despite
O’Neill, seemingly Sligh’s frustrated wife to be that overtures, any any predicate Sligh, that she did not of her responded had not “doing explicit more invita- to know that he was then resorted to even want wife legal, necessarily.” something not that’s tions: Thus, again O’Neill once reintro- Um, know, you Okay. you O’Neill: her the idea of a bribe into conversa- duced mean, before, saying I I’d like were though Sligh never tion with even had out, um, to do you you’re help ig- in fact made such an overture and had falsify I some have to favor for suggestions multiple nored O’Neill’s why I a reason to take such need reason wrongdoing suggestiоns and her initial a, kind a risk in that situation. take bribe. it [Sligh that he could be suicidal said so, yet again explicitly Even and that he wished made her feel better attempt say categorically resisted O’Neill’s to sol- give him words God would bribe, ma'am, responding: “No that’s icit her.] to, saying---- I not what I’m want Um, you want me to make Do O’Neill: Oh. you. you that, you To let know comfort up a reason? know, not, know, I’m I’m a genuine Sligh: (Sighs) Finally, during lunch person.” Id. even asking? you’re that what O’Neill: Is Sligh eventually meeting at did which jail Ma’am, to go I want to Sligh: don’t bribe, initially he make O’Neill a continued tо know, know, um, don’t okay? And why offer other reasons O’Neill should re- who, recorded? is this duce before No, uh uh. eventually offering to make the And, um, (Laughter.) he now stands convicted. Um, yeah. which Sligh: then course, Sligh not even have with him at say I would forever be And I would money ultimately would, meeting the uh— this your in and I debt
767 jury properly could find that from which a for her reduction return promised O’Neill line conduct crossed the between debt. of his tax permissible of the bribe —mere “solicitation” jury quite well that a are convinced We opportunity offer —and ly рroviding an for its conclude, reasonably so on the exculpating “inducement” of the of possibly facts, Sligh’s bribe of strength of these actually causing a criminal intent fer — was, reality, crime of an over- not otherwise have mind that would who, of her re- because zealous bureaucrat Daniel, 3 F.3d existed. See United States also, “training,” if for other reasons cent (4th Cir.1993) (differentiating the 778 in the finding the nefarious upon bent two). weight quantity of the While innocent; only employee not wholly that this required slight, of inducement is bribery in a mind implanted the scheme rigorous. The con requirement content bribery, contemplated then never perva so severe and duct evidenced must be design in her zeal to have overreached legitimately sive that it can be viewed is, that a That we are satisfied upon. acted the will of a reason sufficient overcome IRS, reasonably that the jury could conclude States, person. Crisp v. able See United merely creating opportunity far from (4th Cir.1958). As we have char F.2d illegality inspired the illegality, conceived and recеntly, it more it must involve acterized demonstrated in the face of the defendant’s overreaching” “governmental sufficient “to all. crime at predisposition lack of design in implant a criminal the mind of entitled to an therefore was The defendant Phan, 121 party,” States v. innocent United jury to find that would enable instruction — (4th denied, 149, 154 Cir.1997), cert. F.3d entrap- government victim of that he was a U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 140 L.Ed.2d ment, not to error for the court and was (1998) (footnote omitted), and as conduct give an instruction. agreed have such “likely displace mens rea” United States Cir.1970). (4th DeVore, 1069, 1072 III. inducement And it is insufficient to meet this is re- judgment of the district court The merely gov requirement to establish that the versed, for such fur- and the case remanded illegal suggest the ernment was the first to maybe necessary. proceedings as ther El-Gawli, conduct. See United States Cir.1988). (3d 142, 149 F.2d AND REMANDED. REVERSED actually to “im calculated Short conduct *7 PHILLIPS, Judge, Senior Circuit design” in an innocent plant a criminal dissenting: feat —federal law mind —no inconsiderable properly court ruled I think the district perceived out necessi long permitted, has require suffice to the evidence did not that invite ty, law-enforcement endeavors entrapment submission of an issue convenient, conduct, or make it criminal Agent endeavors jury. Though “[ajrtifice in stratagem” and or employ Sligh’s offer of a bribe were leading up to in en engaged criminal der to “catch those re- possibly deceitful some persistent, States, 503 terprises.” v. United Jacobson surely to invite the end spects, and intended 1535, 1540, 540, 548, 112 118 S.Ct. U.S. result, kind of they fell well short of the (1992) (citing v. 174 Sorrells United L.Ed.2d overreaching government conduct that we 210, States, 435, 441, 53 77 S.Ct. 287 U.S. necessary support an en- have considered States, (1932); v. L.Ed. 413 Sherman United I therefore dissent and trapment defense. 819, 820-21, 372, 2 369, 78 S.Ct. 356 U.S. for the conceded affirm the conviction Russell, (1958); States v. L.Ed.2d 848 United offer. 1644-45, 1637, 423, 93 S.Ct. 411 U.S. (1973)). to this In deference L.Ed.2d 366 correctly the control- 36 majority states The necessity, federal courts have recognized sub- legal entrapment, both ling principles allowing an general found a basis princi- procedural. Under those stantive and jury only in go issue to only before us is whether ples, the issue compelling situations. Seе Unit- unique and than a scintilla” evidence “more there was O’Neill, Gendron, 955, along wanted all had v. 18 F.3d 961-62 ed States (1st Cir.1994) cases). say (collecting Examples to do was bribe “all threat, Wilson, physical see v. include United States v. away.” no walk United States Cir.1993) (9th Becerra, (7th Cir.1997). 992 F.2d Consider 129 F.3d family); (physical threats to defendant’s leading up to the exchange fatal final falsely-based appeals sympathy, see Unit opens legitimately offer. It with O’Neill’s (5th 1073, 1080 Nations, ed 764 F.2d States possible of a closing off the routes several Cir.1985) (false to induce aid clаims of cancer over legal intimated fix had been cars). selling stolen pro- protracted course of conversations — O’Neill, longed much by here, though surely The evidence relentlessly pur- thought be demonstrate So, route, particular based on O’Neill: stratagem” by O’Neill to sued “artifice nothing I can do. there’s overreaching. “catch” shows no such know, Right. you Sligh: But some- Compare No were ever made. Unit- threats thing can be done. (9th Skarie, 317, 320 ed 971 F.2d States O’Neill: Uhhuhn. Cir.1992) (finding impaling the de- threats you that’s what do. Sligh: Because harming her fеndant and son sufficient inducement). Yeah. O’Neill: Requests to constitute violate (even made) were not consistent law many you differ- Sligh: And I’m sure seen Compare overwhelming. States United they types changes, where ent of case Cir.1996) (1st Joost, (finding 92 F.3d So, if that’s were able to be handled. government of inducement where uh, only something possible, and that’s dependent relationship between created thing I need know— govern- agent and known felon and where Okay— O’Neill: repeatedly made over mental contacts were make Sligh: I nеed to do to what—is time); period States v. an extended United uh, transpire. Cir.1993) (find- (7th Groll, 755, 759 992 F.2d Okay. guess I need know O’Neill: government ing inducement where exactly you you, are day every over a month called defendant (Laughter). to do appeared her when she and then threatened sale). Uh, boy, boy. drug Sligh: boy, oh oh oh Is it backing Nor to be out of in a manner that and me? “wined and dined” implanted any previously unheld could have Yeah, just you me. O’Neill: design Compare criminal in his mind. Unit car? Sligh: You drove a (3d 178, 184-85 Fedroff, ed States v. car, Yup. my yup, they I have own O’Neill: Cir.1989) govern (finding inducement where me a gave license.... expensive agents paid for ment defendant’s So, it? Sligh: how much owe gambling trips get in an effort to meals and hundred____ Twenty-three lifestyle). No him to the fraudu accustomed *8 forth misrepresentations put were and lent So, uh, a, a, right. Sligh: All kind attempt play on the never an there was son, help you I giving per can own Sligh. of feelings personal or weaknesses it. Martinez, v. Compare United States of an are not the words over- These (9th Cir.1997) (finding F.3d 1164-65 wary obey whelmed innocent whose will government agent re where inducement implant- by the the law has been overborne wealth); peatedly promised friendship jury A ing design not his own. of a criminal Montanez, v. United States permitted speculate not be should (1st Cir.1997) (reversing drug distribution properly possibility quite as the court district jury was not instructed on conviction because concluded. as a appeals sympathy basis induce conclusion, majority In I venture that ment). short, my reading of the evidence In astray proper entrap- obviously has led very end been up is that to the absorption analysis by an undue with wary being ment negotiations conducted with Company; Corporation; objective outrage at the nature USX John C. apparent Holland, Jr.; suggest- point Cambria & Indiana Rail conduct —to of O’Neill’s Company; to the “crime of an road ing that it amounted Florida East Coast Railway Defendants, Op. Company, at 12. The overzealous bureaucrat.” long ago specifi- Supreme Court Sorrells Transportation, Incorporated; CSX Flori rejected, of the cally as decisive Industries, Incorporated; da East Coast issue, impurity objective purity or of the Express Company, Fruit Growers In Sorrells, conduct. See Government’s corporated; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie specific at 212. The U.S. at 53 S.Ct. Company, Incorporated; Railroad Rich conduct, whether motivation for O’Neill’s mond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Rail by bribery prompted her attendance at Company, Incorporated; road Union seminar, zeal, vigor, innate or what- Company, Incorporated; Railroad Bes ever, federal-entrapment is irrelevant under Compa semer and Lake Erie Railroad Accordingly, I I it. doctrine as understand ny, Incorporated, Third Defendants & court, properly recog- think that the district Party Plaintiffs, this, nizing rightly to allow in the declined proffered attendance at evidence O’Neill’s Canoles, P.C., Kaufman & the seminar. Party Interest, conviction for this con- would affirm the bribery violation of the federal statute. ceded CORPORATION; The RUNNYMEDE Manufacturing
Holland Investment and Company, Incorporated; American Pre Underwriters, Incorporated; mier Wim co; Metals, Incorporated; Wimco Wil Holdings, Incorporated; Triangle mat Industries, Incorporated; Illinois Cen Company, Party Third De tral Railroad fendants. CORPORATION; ABEX
PNEUMO Whit Virginia Association; Manufacturers City Portsmouth, Corporation; man American Automobile Manufacturers Virginia, municipal corporation; Recy Association; Scrap Institute Redevelopment and Hous Portsmouth cling Industries, Incorporated, Amici Authority, Plaintiffs-Appellees, ing Curiae. CORPORATION; ABEX Whit PNEUMO POINT, AND Portsmouth, HIGH THOMASVILLE Corporation; City of man COMPANY, Municipal Corporation; DENTON RAILROAD Virginia, Defendant-Appellant, Redevelopmеnt and Hous Portsmouth Authority, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
ing Railway Company; Norfolk Nor Southern Railway Company, De folk & Western TRANSPORTATION, INCORPO CSX Party Plaintiffs-Ap Third fendants & RATED; Express Fruit Growers Com pellants, pany, Incorporated, Third Defendants & Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, *9 Lackawanna, Corporation; In Erie CSX Lackawanna, Corporation; In
corporated; Corpora Erie Rail CSX Consolidated Corpora corporated; Rail tion; Holding Company; Consolidated Greenlease Company; tion; Holding Company; Greenlease Lake Terminal Rail New Point, High and Denton York, Susquehanna Thomasville & Railroad Western