United States v. Manarite

Second Circuit

United States v. Manarite

434 F.2d 1069

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1970

DocketNo. 331, Docket 35153

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 434 F.2d 1069 (United States v. Manarite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Manarite, 434 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

We have affirmed in open court because we believe appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of one of the statutes under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 894, forbidding “the use of any extortionate means * * * to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit,” is foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. De Stefano, 2 Cir., 429 F.2d 344 (1970), and United States v. Perez, 2 Cir., 426 F.2d 1073, cert. granted, 400 U.S. 915, 91 S.Ct. 175, 27 L.Ed.2d 154 (1970). Moreover, we did not see any merit to his other contentions.

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

PER CURIAM:

We have affirmed in open court because we believe appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of one of the statutes under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 894, forbidding “the use of any extortionate means * * * to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit,” is foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. De Stefano, 2 Cir., 429 F.2d 344 (1970), and United States v. Perez, 2 Cir., 426 F.2d 1073, cert. granted, 400 U.S. 915, 91 S.Ct. 175, 27 L.Ed.2d 154 (1970). Moreover, we did not see any merit to his other contentions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 1069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-manarite-ca2-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack