Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States v. Frank Cangiano
United States v. Frank Cangiano, 491 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1973)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1973-12-27
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- order for return to be without prejudice to the district court to compel delivery of single copies for use in criminal prosecu- ' tions
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Frank Cangiano. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 20 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CANGIANO,491 F.2d 905(2nd Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. FRANK CANGIANO ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Nos. 1125, 1146 thru 1149, Dockets 71-2104 thru 71-2109.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted August 30, 1973.
Decided December 27, 1973.
Joseph L. Belvedere, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant Dominick Ariale.
Philip Brown, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants Thomas Gambardella and Anthony DeRamo.
Robert A. Morse, U.S. Atty., L. Kevin Sheridan and James A. Pascarella, Asst. U.S. Attys., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellee.
Before FRIENDLY and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,fn*District Judge.Page 906
[2] In our previous opinion of June 26, 1972,464 F.2d 320, we affirmed the convictions of the five above named appellants entered after a twelve day jury trial in the Eastern District of New York before Chief Judge Jacob Mishler finding them guilty of transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale, and conspiring to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1465 and 371 (1970). The principal contentions raised by appellants on their appeals, and ruled upon by us, related to the legality of various searches and seizures conducted by the FBI in gathering evidence against appellants. We held, as did the district court after a lengthy pretrial suppression hearing, that appellants' Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated.
[3] Immediately upon learning of the Supreme Court's remand order of June 25, 1973, we entered an order on June 29, 1973 directing the parties to file supplemental briefs. They did. We have carefully re-examined the entire record in light of these briefs and in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court set forth in its remand order herein.Supranote 1. We have concluded, after further consideration as ordered by the Supreme Court, that we should adhere to our previous decision of June 26, 1972. We therefore affirm the convictions of each of the appellants.
[4] Since appellants were convicted after a fair trial on the basis of overwhelming evidence of crimes committed more than five years ago, we order that the mandate issue forthwith.
[5] Affirmed.
- Senior District Judge of the District of Montana, sitting by designation. ↩
- The Supreme Court's per curiam order of June 25, 1973, remanding the instant case and others, reads as follows:
"Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, [413 U.S. 15(1973)]; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, [413 U.S. 49(1973)]; Kaplan v. California, [413 U.S. 115(1973)]; United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels Film, [413 U.S. 123(1973)]; United States v. Orito, [413 U.S. 139(1973)]; Heller v. New York, [413 U.S. 483(1973)]; Roaden v. Kentucky, [413 U.S. 496(1973)]; and Alexander v. Virginia, [413 U.S. 836(1973)]."
↩