From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Barrasso

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 31, 1967
372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967)

Summary

In U.S. v. Barrasso, 372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967), a labor union official convicted of taking money from an employer was ordered as a condition of probation not to be employed as a labor union official.

Summary of this case from State v. Pashandi

Opinion

No. 15893.

Argued January 16, 1967.

Decided January 31, 1967.

Samuel D. Bozza, Newark, N.J., for appellant.

Donald Horowitz, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J. (David M. Satz, Jr., U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HASTIE, GANEY and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Appellant, a labor union official, has been convicted of illegally demanding money from an employer. Sentence was suspended, and a five year period of probation was imposed with the special condition that during probation he not seek or accept employment by any labor union.

We are satisfied that the evidence, though equivocal in some particulars, was sufficient to establish a case for the jury and that the sentence was proper under the controlling statutes. The other questions raised on this appeal have been considered and found to be without merit.

The judgment will be affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Barrasso

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 31, 1967
372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967)

In U.S. v. Barrasso, 372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967), a labor union official convicted of taking money from an employer was ordered as a condition of probation not to be employed as a labor union official.

Summary of this case from State v. Pashandi
Case details for

United States v. Barrasso

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America v. James BARRASSO, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jan 31, 1967

Citations

372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Beros

Indeed, significant impositions upon an individual's first amendment rights may well be reasonable in light…

United States v. Stine

Despite the general rule that federal appellate courts will not review sentences within the bounds prescribed…