State of North Carolina v. Reginald A. Hawkins

Fourth Circuit

State of North Carolina v. Reginald A. Hawkins

365 F.2d 559, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5164

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 16, 1966·No. 10062·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Hawkins, a dentist, was indicted by a state grand jury charged with unlawful interference with a voting registration [560] commissioner in the discharge of her duties and with the unlawful procurement of the registration of four un-qualified voters. He undertook to remove the prosecution to the District Court. We affirm the order of remand.

In the removal petition, it is alleged that he merely rendered requested assistance to the commissioner, that he made no representations about the qualifications of any voter, that the state’s purpose was to harass and deter him, and, in conclusionary language, that he could not obtain a fair trial in North Carolina’s courts. His allegations as to what transpired on the particular occasion are in contradiction of the specific charges of the indictment.

It is clear that this is not a case removable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443. Compare City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944; with State of Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925; see Baines v. City of Danville, 384 U.S. 890, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 996, affirming Baines v. City of Danville, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 756; and Wallace v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 891, 86 S.Ct. 1916, 16 L.Ed.2d 996, affirming Commonwealth of Virginia v. Wallace, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 105.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Hawkins, a dentist, was indicted by a state grand jury charged with unlawful interference with a voting registration [560] commissioner in the discharge of her duties and with the unlawful procurement of the registration of four un-qualified voters. He undertook to remove the prosecution to the District Court. We affirm the order of remand.

In the removal petition, it is alleged that he merely rendered requested assistance to the commissioner, that he made no representations about the qualifications of any voter, that the state’s purpose was to harass and deter him, and, in conclusionary language, that he could not obtain a fair trial in North Carolina’s courts. His allegations as to what transpired on the particular occasion are in contradiction of the specific charges of the indictment.

It is clear that this is not a case removable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443. Compare City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944; with State of Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925; see Baines v. City of Danville, 384 U.S. 890, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 996, affirming Baines v. City of Danville, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 756; and Wallace v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 891, 86 S.Ct. 1916, 16 L.Ed.2d 996, affirming Commonwealth of Virginia v. Wallace, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 105.

Affirmed.

State of North Carolina v. Reginald A. Hawkins, 365 F.2d 559, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5164 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

365 F.2d 559 (State of North Carolina v. Reginald A. Hawkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.