Cases

341 F.Supp. 374 (1972) UNITED STATES of America v. Frank CASALE et al. Crim. No. 14927. United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania. April 8, 1972. Raymond E. Makowski, Philadelphia, Pa., for the United States. Anthony Miele, Williamsport, Pa., for defendants Lloyd Bosch and William R. Becker. Thomas J. Hanlon, Scranton, Pa., for defendant Frank C

SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S.C. § 2510 et seq. [“Act”], lays down a stringent step-by-step procedure that circumscribes and limits all electronic surveillance. The scheme was intended to allay the profound concern expressed by the Supreme Court in such eases as Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S. Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967), over electron

345 F.Supp. 863 (1972) UNITED STATES of America, v. Nicholas MAINELLO et al., Defendants. No. 71-CR-401. United States District Court, E. D. New York. June 29, 1972. *864 *865 *866 Robert A. Morse, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., for the United States; Denis E. D

CLARK, Circuit Judge, with whom THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, GOD-BOLD, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting: The integrity of the remand procedure required by the en banc majority would be impeccable if this were a typical, fact-based case. Because it is not and because of its unique precedential impact, I dissent. The deviation from

TINDER, District Judge. Six defendants were convicted by a jury of operating a racketeering enterprise, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (RICO), conspiring to operate a racketeering enterprise, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), interstate travel in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, illegal gambling, 18 U.S.C. § 1955, and extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, in the United States District Court for the Northe

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: King and ten others appeal from their convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 176a, 841, 846, 952, 960, 963 of conspiring to illegally import and to distribute marijuana in the United States. Various of the defendants were also convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1403(a) for using communications facilities in furtherance of the conspiracy. The government's case was largely

469 F.2d 522 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.Dominic Nicholas GIORDANO, also known as Nick Gino, alsoknown as P. Burdi, also known as Nick Giordina, Appellee.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.Dominic Nicholas GIORDANO, a/k/a Nick Gino, a/k/a P. Burdi,a/k/a Nick Giordina, et al., Appellees. Nos. 72-1399, 72-1407. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit