United States v. Van Riper
| Decision Date | 25 July 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 304.,304. |
| Citation | 113 F.2d 929 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. VAN RIPER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John S. Wise, Jr., of New York City (Horace G. Marks, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
John T. Cahill, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Richard Delafield, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.
On June 16, 1932, the appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment in seventeen counts in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the first eight counts violations of 8 U.S.C.A. § 414 relating to naturalization proceedings were charged; the next eight counts charged subornation of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 232; and the seventeenth count charged a conspiracy to violate 8 U.S.C.A. § 414. He was sentenced to serve concurrently a term of three years on each of the first eight counts; and to a term of two years on the seventeenth count also to run concurrently; and on counts nine to sixteen, inclusive, he was sentenced to a term of five years on each count to run concurrently and to commence at the expiration of the sentence on the other counts. Execution of the sentence on counts nine to sixteen, inclusive, was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. He was committed on that part of the sentence not suspended and was later released on parole and entered upon his probation.
On January 16, 1935, appellant moved to set aside his conviction and to quash the indictment on the ground that it was insufficient to charge a crime. This was denied. On June 21, 1937, he moved for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty; to be permitted to plead not guilty and for a trial. This motion was denied and he appealed. The order denying the motion was affirmed without opinion by this court. United States v. Van Riper, 2 Cir., 92 F.2d 1020.
On May 13, 1938, the probation of the appellant was revoked by order of the District Court but that order was reversed on appeal, United States v. Van Riper, 2 Cir., 99 F.2d 816, and following that reversal the appellant on April 1, 1939, was discharged from any and all further supervision by the probation officer of the court.
On May 8, 1939, appellant was arraigned on a warrant charging violations of the terms of his probation and paroled in the custody of his attorney. He denied the violations charged and, after vainly moving to vacate the order of arrest, was given a hearing on the merits. The court found that the appellant had violated his probation; resentenced him on count nine to a term of eighteen months and on counts ten to sixteen, inclusive, to a term of five years on each count to begin at the expiration of service of the sentence on count nine and to run concurrently. Execution of the five year sentence on such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plewa v. I.N.S., 99 C 302.
...of Zele, 127 F.2d 578, 579 (2nd Cir.1942). The lawyer was later convicted for fraudulent naturalization practices. U.S. v. VanRiper, 113 F.2d 929 (2nd Cir.1940). When the alien attempted to complete another Declaration of Intention three years later in 1934, he inquired of the woman at the ......
-
Petition of Zele, 248.
... ... M. McNally, U. S. Atty., of New York City, on the brief), for the United States ... Before SWAN, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges ... as in the original.) And we went on to speak of petitioner's connection with Harold Van Riper — whose conviction of various offenses in advising aliens to violate the naturalization laws was ... ...
-
United States v. Swanson, 71-1115.
...58 S.Ct. 188, 82 L.Ed. 282; Williams v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 165 F.2d 924; Whitehead v. United States, 6 Cir., 155 F.2d 460; United States v. Van Riper, 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 929; and United States v. Moore, 2 Cir., 101 F.2d 56. Insofar as here pertinent the only difference in the statute at the tim......
-
Petition of Zele, 239.
...practices which were being then forwarded among aliens by Harold Van Riper who was convicted of such offenses. United States v. Van Riper, 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 929. It was, of course, the fact that Zele had no right to file a declaration as he was not a resident and only had the status of a vis......