United States v. Victor Carlucci, Joseph Giordano, Daniel Hanna, Joseph Merola, Norman Rothman, Stuart Sutor

McLAUGHLIN, Before KALODNER Judges. HASTIE, Circuit Reargued 17, 1960, November before Judge, BIGGS, GOODRICH, Chief McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY, FORMAN, Judges. HASTIE Circuit Judge. McLAUGHLIN, Circuit appeals These have been taken defendants who six tried and together in the convicted District Court Pennsylvania District of the Western crimes and a for substantive mately years. send- alleged receiving, posses- fifteen He admitted involving the bags ing purchase for the exportation of Palumbo to sion, transportation and talking him, denied to Carlucci the Gov- but quantity of firearms stolen bags day. to the All of that He said that were States. the the United ernment of newly plant- pre- protection urge be used as a appellants that the evidence prove grass that ed He testified to on his lawns. failed sented beyond the Government bags put were in the back Palumbo the 100 that doubt a reasonable eve- sub- home that conspiracy the his car which he drove guilty or of bags ning. evi- the the he went to look for When Our review crimes. stantive Carlucci, day, Mero- that appellants the next he discovered as to dence the bags daughter us that the had taken the car with la, and convinces Rothman Sutor very least, Pitts- in burgh. in substantial it to Robert Morris School at the there was later, days Upon Re- support verdict. her return a few the evidence Hanna, placed garding and subse- appellants and he them in his cellar Giordano quently his lawn. connection used of them on of their some account a detailed necessary. of this conspiracy We He further testified that because the bags prop- incident, purchased outset, other fundamental he the had at the note doing, verdict in “The from the store the interim. that in so osition if there sustained must be the government produced rebuttal, taking evidence, the view substantial agent testimony who an F.B.I. government, sup- to the most favorable port gone question home to to Giordano’s Giuliano, 3 it.” United States days the seizure of him ten after 582, Cir., 584. 263 F.2d guns. agent inter- said that at this day view, on the that guns Giordano stated illegal shipment of the When purchase the requested he bags, Palumbo to agents, the federal was seized spoken he with Carlucci. Gior- bags guns wrapped burlap in used were daugh- agent that his also told the dano out. To turnd inside connect that were bags Hill to Seton ter had taken bags burlap with Giordano these Greensburg College Robert and not thereby conspiracy, him into the tie testimony his direct following Morris School as government affirma- offered the Upon inspection of the had indicated. premises prior proof: that sometime tive bags: agent discovered guns, Palumbo, an em- seizure of the cellar, front 40 on the defendants, 99 in Giordano’s ployee of Car- another lawn, porch, and 3 bags 6 under the rear lucci, purchased 100 turned used to the In addition the trunk of his car. appellant out for the Giordano inside discrepancy num- Store; between numerical Arnold Cash Feed that from the bags purchas- admitted only ber of Giordano sold Arnold Cash Feed Store ing Feed Store form; from the Arnold Cash bags in this that this was an used unusually large purchase; bags), (130 on his bags number found and the that the bags), (148 premises examination guns close wrapped around the were which bags out; bags in his cellar showed burlap of the they turned inside used bags right laboratory turned side analysis, were new upon F.B.I. bags wrapped out. content of the residual guns was found to around of the evidence con- Close examination wheat, composed of oats and feed scratch cerning participation Giordano’s corn; the same cracked conspiracy, it was no doubt that leaves grain type found at the Arnold Cash question to take that sufficient Store, plane, under the seat of the Feed body justify in con- panel truck used to and in the bed transport bags admittedly cluding pur- plane. wrap- the ones Giordano were chased illegal guns. shipment ped around defendant was the Giordano finding testify. connects Giordano with de- He stated he knew the Such party approxi- and makes him a and Hanna for Carlucci fendants * * * conspirators, Cohen, are not States thereto. Cf. United sup- furnishes who without more Cir., 197 F.2d guil- plies to illicit is not an distiller argues appellant In his brief Giordano ty though conspiracy of a even find, jury did if so that even the object may sale have the furthered suggestion Gior that “There nois conspiracy of a distiller to which the any anything or did else dano party sup- was a but of which the knowledge anybody did else of what plier knowledge.’ (Emphasis had no agreed not is or to do. There supplied). Cf. v. Direct Sales Co. in the stake indication that he a States, supra.” United meaning Unit of the within venture readily principle As is the seen 205, Falcone, U.S. 311 ed v. States applicable is not here. Giordano makes 128], He is L.Ed. 61 S.Ct. 204 [85 no assertion that he an innocent dealer is Fal the protection of entitled to the goods supplier or of conspirators. one does rule rule the cone and anything appear Nor does in the evidence conspiracy party a not become support that could of that sort surmise. aiding abetting unless one it and Moreover, proof there was other in ad conspiracy. Direct knows of the bags identifying dition to that the States, 319 Company United v. Sales bought wrapped guns around the as those 703, 709, [87 1265 63 U.S. S.Ct. it, Giordano. The the had before L.Ed. 1674].” long term association between Giordano Giuliano, 3 States v. United Hanna, and the defendants Carlucci and 584-585, 582, Cir., 1959, F.2d we 263 bags purchased that when Giordano the scope the precisely of Fal outlined place business, he was at Carlucci’s follows: cone doctrine as spoke time, that he with Carlucci and that he sent one of em Carlucci’s Supreme said in Court “As ployees bags purchase him. for States, v. United Direct Sales Co. pro This collocation of circumstances 703, 709, 1943, 63 S.Ct. 319 U.S. adequate upon vides an basis which 1674, 1265, 1268, Fal- L.Ed. 87 logically could conclude that Gior proposition ease cone stands knowledge conspir dano did party ‘that one does become acy integral part an it. Unit aiding conspiracy and abet- to a Giuliano, supra; ed v. United States through supplies ting it, sales of Cir., 1959, Monticello, 264 States v. 3 otherwise, knows of the unless he F.2d 47.1 conspiracy; the inference knowledge urged arguments drawn cannot be main such Two are buyer merely knowledge First, appellant on behalf of the Hanna. goods illegally.’ though will use the it is that even contended gist identifying the case of Hanna as rationale for was clear evidence may cargo v. Falcone driver truck whose 210-211, pages plane found at of 311 U.S. been transferred to the which page illegal ship subsequently 61 S.Ct.: ‘Those hav- seized with ing knowledge proof conspiracy guns, no ment of there was agreement among 1. The fact formal evidence is circum to show prevent conspirators. Leahy stantial, Judge does not found the affirmance express picturesque language point verdict. United States v. Georga, Cir., quoted: picture when he ‘The 210 F.2d of con- 1954, 45; Cir., spiracy by twilight Migliorino, meeting 1956, United States as a of a trio pointed 9; persons 7, Amedeo, 238 F.2d United States v. hats sinister belongs age.’ aptly together 277 F.2d darker 377. As close Theatres, Georga, supra, stated United States v. William Goldman Inc. Loew’s, Inc., Cir., 210 F.2d at 48: 150 F.2d “To establish 15.” this court 743 note has many necessary said it times is not illegal cargo shipment airport from the the truck’s was the to Carlucci’s home and guns. Factually, position appellant’s thereafter, short time Hanna arrived driving illegal placed that the could have truck loaded with the shipment guns. plane place Coupled between at some other with this Pennsyl- story Pittsburgh, Field, prior Remick vania, near association between Morgantown Airport, in conspirators, Hanna and three other lucci, Car- government Virginia. proof Specifically, West Merola and Sutor. flight theory. before, that the It discounts this shows one week a similar Allegheny plane empty airport took off from the made from under the the same cargo County Pittsburgh, Airport, 9:00 plane’s same That circumstances. day. particular arrived It or A.M. on the destination not established but was Hanna, A Carlucci, tele- at Remick at 9:30 A.M. Merola Field and were Sutor placed being phone positively field from the call was then as identified home, approximately and that time. Carlucci’s later, Hanna arrived with minutes Hanna’s are con- acts in sum total cargo truck was from the truck. The tradictory no of the that he had defense process plane, tak- transferred to the knowledge conspiracy. As with ing plane approximately hour. The Giordano are hold that the we forced to hour an left at 11:00 A.M. and landed judge to let the trial question had no recourse but Morgantown Airport later where at the go jury. The latter between it was seized. The distance its verdict that Hanna did decided Morgantown Air- Field and Remick port knowledge part and was weight The was 6Y miles. sup- of it. The evidence is sufficient cargo guns pounds. seized findings they port implied those and must Giuliano, be affirmed. and their chronol These events Monticello, supra. supra; United States ogy, spelling completely, it out while not enough justification for the did furnish important The problem other in jury’s trans the items deduction that appeal alleged this exposure concerns the plane from truck driven ferred to the jury prejudicial to articles to the guns subsequently Hanna were the appeared Pittsburgh defendants which in seized. during newspapers the trial.2 On de calling fense counsel the court’s attention Next, appellant asserts: these, immediately “ inquired the latter * * * being even if were any jury whether had read them. plane loaded into the November A they number of indicated had. knowledge of Hanna there is they being checked, As one of them no evidence to show that he was qualify my said: “I would like to an anything more than a chauffeur swer, reading ” in I * * * just headlines, have noticed the noticed essence, theory urged this is the same just simply paid them and then no fur Giordano, e., on behalf of i. lack attention, things knowl- ther other than those edge conspiracy. Again you just it quickly you is de- scan as look at it. legiti- feated the trial evidence and I didn’t look at it to remember it.” An mate inferences just glanced therefrom. That evi- other stated. “I at the head pointed dence lines, Hanna as the driver I never studied it.” Several important the truck. More just glanced with relation “I commented at it. Just knowledge to Hanna’s assertion of lack of meticulously the headline.” The court testimony plane is the every remaining that when the questioned juror. ar- These at Remick rived Field replied a call was made all had not read the ac- Kensington newspa- in twenty-five 2. An article a New is some miles from Pitts- per burgh. undisputed was later included. reargu- It is clear from It was at the proof any jury the record there was no no ment that one on the was from juror paper. Kensington Kensington. ever saw that New fairly. judge expressed himself as half and a -counts. For a proceeded judge this satisfied printed followed the trial. record the reminding carefully up by patiently and situation before us long them talk to of his which Marshall confronted the court in prior to their of the venire members States, 1959, v. United 360 U.S. re-He case.3 selection to serve S.Ct. mem- L.Ed.2d where de- peated his fundamental thesis “ * ** bers of the read presumed fendant innocent query articles and the as to the evidence unless and until all the upon exposure effect to their them of jury believes .all'the in the case evidence appeal content. In this none of the contrary beyond a reasonable -fco the any and there Finally them: -doubt.” he said to question possible resultant ques- going I to ask this “Now am harm. our con- So narrow issue for glanc- your you: all From tion of sideration is not the district whether perusal of the headlines es gauging abused his discretion or of matter contained other consequence upon jurors the of the news- you anything any newspaper or paper by read them but whether accounts might on a .television heard have believing judge wrong by the was in law broadcast, is or radio broadcast they jurors all told him that twelve when any anyone doubt has there here who glance they at the most had done was that her but mind or mind argued the that headlines. It has been try case and this or she could he jurors avoid order to said this in entirely upon her base his or verdict by com- criticism court. That brought court and into ihe evidence vig- pletely assumption. A unwarranted by and uninfluenced .admitted here charge. judge ilant, experienced inwas any any of outside communication every every estab- His word and move be don’t Now kind whatsoever? to to it that lished his determination see say to so. afraid justice full the trial conducted with it, any you qualms about “If have early address to sides. The court’s both anything you have heard if throughout panel, this to the his attitude n outside concerning the courtroom long which, interrup- some trial with any trial person this connected with January 11, tions, from extended you to reason believe which highest February 4, 1960, was to you to difficult make it would jury. sympathetic for the consideration give any in this of the defendants language quoted demonstrates His above trial, please don’t hesitate fair case a striving of citizens no bullier he was say so.” duty perhaps but to do their sworn prob- hardly caught comprehensible in a having jurors indicated None making. intentionally of their not lem anything outside the court seen heard or courteously urged him them tell He any regarding person connected room any stories and his read the if one had doubt which created the trial say try ability please don’t be afraid to so” “Now her defendants (cid:127)of his or by publicity explained to so that he them ne- affected 3. He bad then juror being cessity a fair could not be to tell she careful “ * ** accounts, the sacred He stressed radio broadcasts or television him. importance * ** following case; regarding pictures these “Nei- how rules, judge simple -which are most im- must have nor ther have, every portant thought we in- rules than this in mind other de- presumed an offense is inno- accused of be dividual at this time must fendant the evidence intro- and until he be eent unless innocent and that cannot ad- be per- guilty convinces judged this case unless and until the evidence duced contrary beyond beyond jury, son, to the case convinces the in the He, time, ap- doubt.” at that a reasonable doubt.” reasonable any panel pealed member who says U.S., page “please of 360 hesitate to so” were don’t honestly must made which 1173 of 79 statements S.Ct.: interpret- honestly interpreted. Thus large judge “The has a dis- trial juror would such ed meant that ruling cretion in prejudice on the issue of slightest unfavor- be excused without resulting read- ar- the most biased able remark. Even ing by jurors articles news con- suggest * * * gument put to hard would be cerning the trial. General- try jurors, sworn that all twelve beyond izations that statement are deliberately fairly would indictments profitable, not case because each remaining in the break their oaths box, special must its facts.” turn on having items, instead (Emphasis supplied). protection bowing the wise out under We never reach the Marshall doctrine dig- saving only their not the court and large of a trial whether discretion nity but their honor. rightly issue exercised are resulting reading prejudice whole record we From the from the jurors’ probity. How confident of the ever, trial. articles news appeal we purposes of this for the court found that news go most There need not that far. in jurors. not been read instance had support of the exposure substantial evidence there was no Therefore possible prejudice court’s conclusion to their views Suggestion to read the news accounts. jury. contrary suspicion founded most is at States, Cir., 1924, Griffin v. United 3 generally. jurors eye of on a worm’s view 437, was, 295 Marshall, F. there as in believing justified The was acceptance exposure by jury of believing jury. And members of the prejudice. opinion to The itself states deny the but to them he had no recourse page 439, jury “Members of the mistrial, excuse for the sole motion for reading newspapers”. Meyer been seen theory or a member which was the Cadwalader, C.C.1891, v. 32, 36, 49 F. jury trial had read the members of the Griffin, significantly cited in makes no exposed had been accounts and therefore opinion cautionary statement in the improper prejudicial information to given jury. instructions ever were respecting the defendants. opinion say jury separated The does “The No decision has been at the court, furnished us or close of each session of the found that, going have we which is in and it is conflict incredible out into community, they with our above conclusion. Marshall v. did not see and read States, supra 310, United publications.” [360 these ally U.S. 79 To liter- 1173], help appel- reasoning S.Ct. lends no opinion follow the lays guiding lants’ sequestering juries view. It down as its would mean all where principle jury prejudice alleged possibility where there is was a of that sort of (case) publicity to exist that “each appearance must turn on otherwise mere special objected its own prejudicial facts.” Here the regarding an article held to be jury. trial, ground to accounts never reached the The would be sufficient jury granting all headlines which are saw con- a motion for mistrial. This is nothing tained relative to the Supreme trial not the doctrine of the Court was not in In evidence. Marshall in Marshall. In McKibben v. Philadel- admittedly juror exposure phia Ry. Co., Cir., was 1918, & R. 251 F. According 577, complained contents of articles. Appeals opinion, Cir., indisputably 1958, brought Court into room 94, 97, jurors juror 258 F.2d “Six read and read to all of the other Vaughan one of the articles and two of the six Magee, members. Supreme opinion Cir., 1914, 630, The read both.” Court merely is F. another reading example jury having founded on the actually of a concerning exposed of news the trial. It a statement which was not unregistered stolen, opinion, untaxed, The or evidence. *** that there sufficesto be an for- reads: “It interstate or eign shipment only Yet, statements it substantial contraband. had before gun-running in if not he was aware of matters which were illegal principle it, evidence, aspect scheme on no and some but which properly into evi- he admitted could be a mem- law could have been convicted as Ogden, particu- D.C.E. ber of dence.” United States D.Pa.1900, commit charged. Judge For, decision lar F. another offenses as positive urged by appellants, Learned contains Hand has reminded us: “While * * * may running guilty proof one be report. past light one the offensive traffic of whose existence and discussed ignorant, guilty one cannot be con- appellants’ other examined We spiring past light, to run for one such a They and do points. merit are without agree light past cannot run unless discussion. not warrant light supposes that there is a to run judgment district court will past.” Crimmins, 2 United States v. affirmed. I 123 F.2d think conspir- Giordano has been convicted'of Judge (dissenting) HASTIE, Circuit ing to commit various substantive crimes should I the defendant Giordano think with no evidence whatever of his aware- acquitted that this court have been contemplat- ness that these crimes were acquittal. He require now should activity ed, less, much that his in con- five and seven of convicted on counts bags quantity burlap nection with my was in- view there indictment. these crimes. would facilitate beyond prove rea- evidence to sufficient properly worst that can be found guilt on either count. doubt his sonable regard in this is that Giordano’s con- charge of un- is a substantive Count five flicting bags statements about the show register certain firearms failure to lawful apprehension bags or even belief that the Secretary Treasury. I with the wrongdoing. had becomeinvolved in some that Giordano find no evidence whatever demonstrating But that far short of posses- connection with the such acquired disposed that he of them in- transportation of the firearms sion or tending they that in used duty question it as to make his here in charged crimes in this indictment. register opinion Indeed, of them. the to my view this conviction must have been count but not discuss this this court does speculation upon jury based the supports of conviction rather Giordano’s the connection of with Giordano the con- conspiracy under count seven. charged. spiracy Therefore, it should proof thought The support entire to the not stand. charge against Giordano con- purchased sists of evidence that he The case of the defendant Hanna some bags; burlap that a friend who different. He was the truck driver worked who transported goods purchase him; for Carlucci made the the stolen to the air- charged bags, longer port. that possession later these in no in the He is several counts. charged Giordano, In count three he is with the sub- as used wrappings shipment possession proper- for a offense of stantive contraband firearms; knowing ty explanation and that his United States it to purchase Rayborn investigator shortly to an have been stolen. Cf. v. United States, Cir., after particu- the event 234 F.2d 368. Un- differed in some gave questionably from lars the account he did for a time have a he later on guns posses- proved the witness load stolen in his stand. It was not truck any exculpatory that offered Giordano ever He never knew or sion. intended that bags Accordingly, guns. explanation this. wrap the Beyond were to be used to guilty knowledge that, prosecution properly infer not could did even unexplained possession attempt of his show he knew from given the instructions the court Al- of Cf. stolen articles. legrucci, jury. jurors ad- Then For one of 258 F.2d 70. “I would dressed the follows: entitled court as not Hanna is this I think reason answer, qualify my in read- like to ing acquittal matter of law. as a noticed I Quite questions apart as to from just headlines, then noticed them concerning sufficiency of the evidence attention, just simply paid further in particular participation individuals things you just scan other than those appellants charged, con- crimes quickly you look at look it. I didn’t at in its erred court tend that the district Thereupon it to remember it”. each mis- request disposition of their l-eading- jurors who had admitted jury’s declared trial be because newspaper articles modified admis- highly preju- exposure to information just sion to conform with what pub- appellants which was to the dicial said. One of them observed: “I can Pittsburgh, daily newspapers in lished thing. paid about the I same little atten- Pennsylvania this trial was while headlines, tion to the accounts in the progress there. knowing nothing me, it don’t mean jury for more to a The case 'was tried paper. my what is in the I own use During period than three weeks. judgment”. Two “I then said: sequestered. Its mem- not am the same”. Four others stated: “I large entirely from the end bers were doing have been the same”. beginning day trial until of each emphasized The then to the During the first week the next. importance deciding solely on the derogatory de- articles about trial testimony basis of the in court. He also placed appeared, conspicuously fendants gross stressed impropriety of news- daily newspapers. headlined, in local paper, reports radio and television con- a substantial contained taining derogatory information about the- prejudicial de- to the of material amount Having sought- defendants on trial. thus large and, in which was fendants prejudice to minimize the risk of put in part, evidence not have been could defendants the court denied the defend- is no dis- As to this there the trial. ants’ motion for a mistrial. pute. stories stated indisputable It is that when were connected are- all of the defendants Kensing- disperse day “gambling day allowed in New combine” dur- a ton, long ing publicized operated much of them also trial that one danger subjected Plavana, gambling is improper will be concession exporta- derogatory attempted purpose influences. When of their gambling protect pub- materials about the defendants are was tion of daily newspapers in lished in communi- in Cuba. franchises jurors ties where the live the likelihood days 21st, few after these June a On prejudice to the defendants often be- published, derogatory coun- articles were great comes so that corrective action is brought publications to the at- sel required. States, Cir., Griffinv. United 3 thereupon judge of the trial who tention 1924, problem 295 F. 437. The is to de- jurors about questioned the assembled cide when whether a situation has judge open first in court. the matter developed in which a court should of them had whether asked less risk corrective drastic than a newspaper trial. accounts read trial. new replied, “I court 8 have”. The No. Juror States, you only 1959, v. United “Are one that Marshall then asked: 310, 1171, jurors 2, 3, 5, point 1250, 79 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d this No. At U.S. has?” significant development 10, 11, 6, 9, all a new 12 and two alternates signifying they during hands, case, In in this area. their law raised jurors newspaper trial some accounts of the criminal a “read” too had This, course, preju- had “scanned” in violation others trial. But, any explanation jurors’ examined dicial to the defendants. uniform apart original separately fellow from their modification in admissions jurors, colleague adopt court assured the order to each of them what a reading merely the heard that he had not been influenced about “head- put question things you just them lines” articles in and could and “those scan reaching quickly you out of in a on mind decision look face at it”. On its gives impression Marshall decision this evidence. Before the conduct of an escape possible various that this sort effort courts had held or minimize ju impressive reading assurance combined with criticism of their the trial enough genuine un to make rather dicial admonition than recollection only trial assailable a decision of the admissions minutes earlier made no seri that the defendants had suffered I mistaken. In these circumstances prejudice change ous think position from adverse that the jurors significant any really sufficient stories and that there does not to g., declaring great E. reason for a mistrial. extent diminish likelihood 1951, Cir., Leviton, prejudice inquiry United States v. disclosed on first when 848; many contrary Carru that, 193 F.2d United States so of them admitted thers, 512. But admonition, 152 F.2d to the court’s earlier Court, Supreme the Marshall in case had read accounts of trial. ignoring line, this older said And because I read the Marshall case as jurors “exposure meaning very to informa kind of risk of substantial * * * prejudi prejudice circumstances, so tion of a character in all the rather directly offered cial that it could not be than clear affirmative demonstration enough enough re prejudice fact, require as evidence” was in itself 312, page quire jurors exposed a new trial. 360 U.S. a mistrial when have been page fore derogatory And see the publica- 1173. S.Ct. to inadmissible and shadowing Justice person trial, of Mr. concurrence tions about a I think the strongly ap- Mr. Justice Frankfurter supports Jackson and Marshall rule though clearer, similar, situ pellants’ a somewhat for a trial here. demand new Florida, Shepherd ation v. State Finally, even in the absence of direct 549, 95 L.Ed. 341 U.S. 71 S.Ct. jurors evidence that pub have read the question, early lications in decisions in position this circuit have taken the case, present In the if the strong logical there is inference that adhered to their first admissions of read- jurors permitted separate during ing newspaper trial, accounts of the derogatory trial have seen or learned of unquestionably Marshall rule would material about the defendants which has required that a new trial be If ordered. appeared conspicuously during the trial significantly this case is different from daily on the front paper. of a local Marshall, the difference must be found in Meyer Cadwalader, C.C.E.D.Pa. the fact that the so modified their 32, 36, Judge 49 F. Circuit Acheson original admissions as to indicate said: contact minimal observation of published about “It is idle to the trial. that there Two is no special deserve direct evidence to circumstances mention show that the They appeared these this connection. The articles. no time daily leading jour- in the nals, individual out issues of examined colleagues. of their and were scattered presence Each was broadcast community. position jury sepa- to be influenced over the The what his colleagues paying had said rated at the close of each little session of court, Second, that, to the articles. and it even in attention incredible general going questioning community, into out entire inquiry, much there was less a did not see read these searching cross-examination, publications.” to obtain States, 3 In Griffin United single that a 295 F. evidence story derogatory front at- had come

about the defendant testimony tention of the copy juror with a been seen paper possession. The court

held a new trial should granted. rulings of our uncompromising

These

predecessors are old. in this circuit ruling Supreme Marshall in the Court they provide very In sum

case is new. convincing reasons for what to me are

directing trial in the circumstances a new present case. judgment be reversed should as to for dismissal cause remanded trials in the cases and new

Giordano appellants.

the other Judge,

BIGGS, and KALOD- Chief Judge,

NER, in the concur views Circuit dissenting opinion. expressed in this G. SCHALLER

Warren

UNITED STATES. Ziebarth, Washington, No. 534-57. D. Thomas A. Shipley C., plaintiff. L. for Carl Court of Claims. Washing- Pickett, Shipley, Akerman & April Decided 1961. ton, C., on D. the brief. Rehearing June Denied C., Wolfe, Washington, D. Sheldon J. Atty. Gen., with whom was Asst. William Jr., Orrick, H. defendant. Judge. LARAMORE, Plaintiff, veteran, employed City Regional Renegotia- the New York 22, Board tion on December GS-14, salary Renegotiator, at a of $9600 per appointment annum. The was an ex- appointment (indefinite) pursuant cepted 107(e) Renegotiation to section

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Victor Carlucci, Joseph Giordano, Daniel Hanna, Joseph Merola, Norman Rothman, Stuart Sutor

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Mar 2, 1961

Citation: 288 F.2d 691

Docket Number: 13136-13141, 13162

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.