Ponzi v. Ward

Citation7 F. Supp. 736
Decision Date30 July 1934
Docket NumberNo. 5201.,5201.
PartiesPONZI v. WARD, Commissioner.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Peter Maggio, of Everett, Mass., for plaintiff.

Francis J. W. Ford, U. S. Atty., and Arthur J. B. Cartier, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

BREWSTER, District Judge.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus heard upon the merits before writ issued. By agreement of parties, it was submitted upon the record in the Immigration Bureau.

The petitioner is held upon a deportation warrant issued September 28, 1927. The reason for the delay in executing the warrant is due to the fact that the petitioner has only recently been released from state prison, after serving a sentence imposed by the state court. The deportation warrant was issued upon two grounds:

(1) That the alien had been sentenced subsequent to May 1, 1917, to imprisonment more than once to a term of one year or more for the commission, subsequent to his entry, of a crime involving moral turpitude, to wit, unlawfully using the mails in schemes to defraud, and a common and notorious thief.

(2) That be has been convicted or admits the commission of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, to wit, forgery, prior to his entry into the United States.

There is no serious dispute about the facts of the case. It appears that on the 30th day of November, 1920, upon an indictment charging the petitioner with the unlawful use of the mails in schemes to defraud, this court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment in Plymouth County House of Correction. In 1925 he was found guilty of larceny upon indictments returned in the state court, and was adjudged by the court a common and notorious thief and sentenced to state prison for a term of seven to nine years. The execution of this sentence was stayed until February 15, 1927, when the stay was revoked and the sentence imposed. The last entry of the alien into the United States was on July 30, 1910, and the record discloses that in 1908, in Canada, he was convicted and sentenced for three years in a penitentiary at Montreal for the crime of forgery.

The statute upon which the authorities have proceeded in ordering the deportation is section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (USCA, tit. 8, § 155). In substance it provides that an alien who is hereafter sentenced more than once to imprisonment for a term of one year or more, because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude committed at any time after entry, and any alien who is convicted or who admits the commission prior to entry of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, may be deported.

The petitioner attacks the validity of the deportation proceedings on several grounds: (1) That he has not been sentenced more than once within the meaning of the statute; (2) that his crimes do not involve moral turpitude; (3) that he was denied a fair hearing; (4) that the warrant was not properly signed; (5) that the warrant had lapsed; (6) that the sentences contemplated by the statute must both be imposed by the federal court.

None of these objections can be sustained. Concerning the first objection, it is important to note that the statute only requires that the alien shall be sentenced more than once for the requisite term. There can be no doubt that Ponzi was sentenced more than once for separate and distinct crimes. The sentences were imposed by different tribunals. None of the cases cited by the petitioner in his brief approaches the case at bar on the facts. On the contrary, there is abundant authority, in this circuit and elsewhere, that the petitioner was sentenced more than once within the purview of the statute. Clark v. Orabona (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 187; Johnson v. United States ex rel. Pepe (C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 810; Nishimoto v. Nagle (C. C. A.) 44 F.(2d) 304; Tassari v. Schmucker (C. C. A.) 53 F.(2d) 570.

In United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 43 S. Ct. 141, 67 L. Ed. 314, the Supreme Court decided that conviction and punishment in the state court under the state law for a liquor violation did not prevent prosecution in the United States court for violating the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA), even though both offenses grew out of the same transaction.

The second objection is that the crimes for which the alien was sentenced did not involve moral turpitude. Three crimes are involved, namely, the offense of larceny, offense of forgery, and using the mails in schemes to defraud.

As to the first crime, the matter is disposed of by Tillinghast v. Edmead (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 81, a case in this circuit which held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Jordan v. De George
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 7 de maio de 1951
    ...with intent to defraud, United States ex rel. Popoff v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1935, 79 F.2d 513; using the mails to defraud, Ponzi v. Ward, D.C.1934, 7 F.Supp. 736; execution of chattel mortgage with intent to defraud, United States ex rel. Millard v. Tuttle, D.C.1930, 46 F.2d 342; concealing ass......
  • Attorney Grievance Commission v. Reamer, 12
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 2 de novembro de 1977
    ...A.2d 52 (1973); In re Comyns, 132 Wash. 391, 232 P. 269 (1925); In re West, 155 W.Va. 648, 186 S.E.2d 776 (1972). See also Ponzi v. Ward, 7 F.Supp. 736 (D.Mass.1934), where an alien convicted of using the mails to defraud was held to have committed a crime involving moral turpitude under th......
  • Mercer v. Lence, 1606.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 12 de abril de 1938
    ...4th Cir., 53 F.2d 570, 571; Tillinghast v. Edmead, 1st Cir., 31 F.2d 81. See, also, U. S. v. Karnuth, D.C., 30 F.2d 825; Ponzi v. Ward, D.C., 7 F.Supp. 736; U. S. ex rel. Amato v. Commissioner of Immigration, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 480; U. S. v. Uhl, D.C., 203 F. 152; and In re Henry, 15 Idaho 75......
  • In re Giacobbi
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 27 de julho de 1939
    ...1022 and certiorari was denied in 280 U.S. 570, 50 S.Ct. 28, 74 L.Ed. 623. See, also, Restivo v. Clark, 1 Cir., 90 F.2d 847; Ponzi v. Ward, D.C., 7 F.Supp. 736. The chief question then is whether the alien had a fair From the record it appears that on the hearing of March 30th, 1937, all th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT