United States v. National Plastikwear Fashions, Inc., Harry I. Greene

368 F.2d 845, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedNovember 9, 1966
Docket161, Docket 30541
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 845 (United States v. National Plastikwear Fashions, Inc., Harry I. Greene) 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. National Plastikwear Fashions, Inc., Harry I. Greene, 368 F.2d 845, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428 (2d Cir. 1966).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We agree with Judge Tenney’s well-reasoned opinion that Greene’s initial allegations failed to show any outstanding adverse legal consequences from his conviction and one-month sentence for criminal contempt, imposed and served nearly twelve years ago, which were necessary to give the district court jurisdiction of his application to vacate the judgment of conviction even under the liberal scope of coram nobis. United States v. Roth, 283 F.2d 765 (2 Cir. 1960), vacated 286 F.2d 635 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 961, 81 S.Ct. 1922, 6 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1961). However sympathetic we may be to the desire to be rid of the stigma of even a one-month’s sen-' tence for a misdemeanor, Article III of the Constitution wisely prohibits courts of the United States from diverting their energies to matters without legal effect. And we are not required to decide whether added allegations made in Greene’s motion for reargument in the District Court, if proved, would have sufficed to create a case or controversy even though the initial petition did not. For we are convinced that, as demonstrated in Judge Tenney’s careful opinion on re-argument, Greene was in no way deprived of his right to counsel during his 1954 trial for criminal contempt. Thus, even if there had been error in denying him leave to appeal from his conviction in forma pauperis on the basis of the alleged denial, which we strongly doubt, this was damnum absque injuria.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Dressler v. United States
D. Connecticut, 2022
Griffin v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2019
Moskowitz v. United States
64 F. Supp. 3d 574 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Skok v. State
760 A.2d 647 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
Woodrow Fleming v. United States
146 F.3d 88 (Second Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Foont
901 F. Supp. 729 (S.D. New York, 1995)
United States v. David T. Dellinger
657 F.2d 140 (Seventh Circuit, 1981)
United States v. Philip Travers
514 F.2d 1171 (Second Circuit, 1974)
Howard v. State
493 S.W.2d 14 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1973)
Deckard v. State
492 S.W.2d 400 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1973)
Wharton v. United States
348 F. Supp. 1026 (W.D. Arkansas, 1972)
Carl McFadden v. United States
439 F.2d 285 (Eighth Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Jorge Gonzalez
379 F.2d 284 (Second Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
368 F.2d 845, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-national-plastikwear-fashions-inc-harry-i-greene-ca2-1966.