United States v. JC Ehrlich Co., Inc.

Decision Date14 March 1974
Docket NumberCrim. No. 73-0451-K.
Citation372 F. Supp. 768
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. J. C. EHRLICH CO., INC.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

George Beall, U. S. Atty., Michael E. Marr, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Donald F. Chiarello, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

On March 1, 1974, there appeared before this Court counsel for the parties and Mr. Victor Hammel, Vice-President and Secretary of J. C. Ehrlich Co., Inc., one of the defendants herein. At that time this Court accepted the said defendant's pleas, to charges of violations of 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 through 711, inclusive, 50 C.F.R. § 10.21(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, of nolo contendere to counts 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 60; and accepted the nolle prosequi by the Government of counts 20 through 52, 57 through 59, and 61 through 114; and imposed the maximum fine of $500 under each of the aforesaid ten counts to which the defendant entered pleas of nolo contendere, making a total maximum fine of $5000. In addition, this Court imposed court costs of this case upon the said defendant. Further, this Court placed the said corporate defendant on probation for a period of five years and stated that if, during that probationary period, the said defendant violated any law of the United States dealing with or related to the preservation of wildlife and was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the same, this Court would require the payment of the remainder (i. e., $4500) of the $5000 fine.

The basic authority pursuant to which this Court is enabled to place a defendant on probation after conviction of an offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment is set forth in Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and in 18 U.S.C. § 3651. Two questions arise in connection with the sentence imposed by this Court on March 1, 1974: (1) Can probation be utilized when the only possible punishment is a fine? (2) Can a corporation be placed on probation? In each case the answer would appear to be in the affirmative.

In United States v. Berger, 145 F.2d 888 (2d Cir., 1944), writing for himself and Judges L. Hand and Augustus N. Hand, Judge Chase held that individual defendants could be placed upon probation even though no sentence of imprisonment could be imposed. See also 5 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 32:68, p. 258 (1967). In United States v. Beacon Piece Dyeing & Finishing Co., Inc., 455 F.2d 216 (2d Cir., 1972), Judge Oakes, writing for himself and Judges Friendly and Moore, upheld Judge Mansfield's imposition of a fine to be paid in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • U.S. v. Interstate Cigar Co., Inc., 86-1274
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • September 24, 1986
    ...F.2d 58, 59 (7th Cir.1972); United States v. Danilow Pastry Co., 563 F.Supp. 1159, 1163-66 (S.D.N.Y.1983); United States v. J.C. Ehrlich Co., 372 F.Supp. 768, 769-70 (D.Md.1974). Some of these cases approve particular probation conditions; others strike them down; but none contains any sugg......
  • Arroyo v. Tucker, Civ. A. No. 73-2247.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 25, 1974
    ... ... Dolores TUCKER, et al ... Civ. A. No. 73-2247 ... United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania ... March 25, ... , Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., New York City, Nelson A. Diaz, William Traylor, Temple ... Kennedy, a co-sponsor of Section 4(e), pointed out during the floor ... ...

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