UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
FRANK CANGIANO ET AL., APPELLANTS

2d Cir. | 1973-12-27
Nos. 1125, 1146 thru 1149, Dockets 71-2104 thru 71-2109
Before FRIENDLY and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge.
491 F.2d 905 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1973) Caution
Cited by 18 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court affirmed the convictions of the appellants for transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce and conspiring to do so.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants were convicted after a jury trial for transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce and conspiring to do so. The Supreme Court rema…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

[*906] PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam order entered June 25, 1973, 413 U.S. 913, remanded the above case to us for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), and other cases decided the same day.1 The instant case now before us for reconsideration on remand is among some 60 cases similarly remanded on June 25, 1973 for further consideration in light of the Miller series of opinions. See United States v. Thevis, 484 F. 2d 1149, 1154 (5 Cir. 1973).

In our previous opinion of June 26, 1972, 464 F. 2d 320, we affirmed the convictions of the five above named appellants entered after a twelve day jury trial in the Eastern District of New York before Chief Judge Jacob Mishler finding them guilty of transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale, and conspiring to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1465 and 371 (1970). The principal contentions raised by appellants on their appeals, and ruled upon by us, related to the legality of various searches and seizures conducted by the FBI in gathering evidence against appellants. We held, as did the district court after a lengthy pretrial suppression hearing, that appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated.

Immediately upon learning of the Supreme Court’s remand order of June 25, 1973, we entered an order on June 29, 1973 directing the parties to file supplemental briefs. They did. We have carefully re-examined the entire record in light of these briefs and in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court set forth in its remand order herein. Supra note 1. We have concluded, after further consideration as ordered by the Supreme Court, that we should adhere to our previous decision of June 26, 1972. We therefore affirm the convictions of each of the appellants.

Since appellants were convicted after a fair trial on the basis of overwhelming evidence of crimes committed more than five years ago, we order that the mandate issue forthwith.

Affirmed.

. The Supreme Court’s per curiam order of June 25, 1973, remanding the instant case and others, reads as follows :

“Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, [413 U.S. 15 (1973) ] ; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, [413 U.S. 49 (1973) ] ; Kaplan v. California, [413 U.S. 115 (1973)]; United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels Film, [413 U.S. 123 (1973)]; United States v. Orito, [413 U.S. 139 (1973) ] ; Heller v. New York, [413 U.S. 483 (1973)] ; Roaden v. Kentucky, [413 U.S. 496 (1973)] ; and Alexander v. Virginia, [413 U.S. 836 (1973)].”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw