United States v. Memolo, 8994.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 8994.,8994. |
| Citation | 152 F.2d 759 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. John MEMOLO, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Charles J. Margiotti, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Margiotti & Casey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Stanley F. Coar, of Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Walter M. Campbell, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Spurgeon Avakian, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Frederick V. Follmer, U. S. Atty., of Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
We have examined with care the briefs, the appendix and the full transcript of the proceedings in the case at bar. We can perceive no substantial error therein. See Section 269 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 391. Accordingly the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smith
...defendant; commanding them to reinstate the judgment entered in said case, which judgment was affirmed on January 22, 1946, by this court (152 F.2d 759); and commanding them to proceed with the execution of the judgment and sentence as required by the mandate of this court. The petitioner a......
-
Clark v. Memolo
...Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States v. Memolo, 152 F.2d 759, and certiorari denied Memolo v. U. S., 327 U.S. 800, 66 S.Ct. 902, 90 L. Ed. 1025. Thereafter, the District Court, of its own motion......
-
United States v. Smith
...Circuit affirmed with a per curiam opinion declaring that it could perceive no substantial error in the proceedings. United States v. Memolo, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 759. Petition for certiorari was denied by this Court, Memolo v. United States, 327 U.S. 800, 66 S.t. 902, 90 L.Ed. 1025. Therefore,......