United States v. Bradford, 139
| Decision Date | 19 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | Docket 20278.,No. 139,139 |
| Citation | 160 F.2d 729 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BRADFORD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robert L. Bradford, pro se.
Adrian W. Maher, U. S. Atty., of Bridgeport, Conn., and Thomas J. Birmingham, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Hartford, Conn., for appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 19, 1947. See 67 S.Ct. 1351.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to an information charging him with using preference ratings established under § 301 of the Second War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 633, to secure quantities of electrical equipment greater than the ratings called for. He now appeals from a sentence imposed pursuant to his plea. His contention, that the information fails to charge an offense, survives his plea. United States v. Ury, 2 Cir., 106 F. 2d 28, 124 A.L.R. 569; United States v. Max, 3 Cir., 156 F.2d 13. His further claim of authority to obtain the equipment under other preference ratings is, however, merely an attempt at denial, contrary to the admissions of his plea. Forthoffer v. Swope, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 707.
Contrary to defendant's argument the information was not invalid because it did not allege publication in the Federal Register of the regulation violated, Priorities Reg. No. 3, 32 CFR, Cum.Supp., § 944.23, 7 F.R. 7887 as amended. The courts may take judicial notice of the regulations of federal administrative agencies. Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 221, 222, 14 S.Ct. 513, 38 L.Ed. 415; Thornton v. United States, 271 U.S. 414, 420, 46 S.Ct. 585, 70 L.Ed. 1013; United States v. Shapiro, 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 890. Nor was it invalid for failure to allege that the commodities involved were covered by published general priority orders. Under the regulations private persons having difficulty in obtaining uncontrolled commodities to complete defense contracts could secure preference ratings by individual written application to the War Production Board. The Board endorsed upon the application the grant of a preference rating for the commodities needed under the particular contract and returned the application to the sender. P R-2, 32 CFR, Cum.Supp., § 944.22, 6 F.R. 4684. Once "assigned" by the Board, such a rating could be "applied" (used) by the recipient to secure the proper quantity of the commodities he needed. The supplier of these commodities could in turn "extend" (use) the rating to secure from subsuppliers the commodities he needed to fill the original rating holder's order. The term "apply" denoted an original use, the term "extend" a subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cassidy v. United States
...(Plf. Decl., ¶ 5). 6. "[C]ourts may take judicial notice of the regulations of federal administrative agencies." United States v. Bradford, 160 F.2d 729, 731 (2d Cir. 1947); see also Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211, 221-22, 14 S. Ct. 513, 38 L. Ed. 415 (1894) ("[W]herever, by the express languag......
-
State v. Stokes, 248
...344 U.S. 830, 73 S.Ct. 36, 97 L.Ed. 646; 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 501; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 425(4), p. 1208. In United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 729, cert. den. 331 U.S. 829, 67 S.Ct. 1351, 91 L.Ed. 1844, the Court said: 'Defendant pleaded nolo contendere * * *. He now app......
-
Smith v. United States 8212 1949
...footnote to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 856, at page 859 states: 'These terms are explained in United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 729, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 829, 67 S.Ct. 1351 (91 L.Ed. 1844). A preference rating is applied by the original recipient t......
-
State v. Hintenberger, A--560
...State v. Algor, 26 N.J.Super. 527, 535, 98 A.2d 340 (App.Div.1953); United States v. Max, 156 F.2d 13 (3 Cir., 1946); United States v. Bradford, 160 F.2d 729 (2 Cir., 1947), certiorari denied 331 U.S. 829, 67 S.Ct. 1351, 91 L.Ed. 1844 (1947). This same result has been reached in the federal......