Filed November 17, 2017
Furthermore, the Courts have examined the nature and circumstances and frequency of the contact (e.g. In Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4 (1971), Page 2 of 12 association was not intended to apply to incidental contact; Birzon v. King, 469 F. 2d 1241 ( 1972), "With regard to the term "associate," we believe that the meaning that would more often occur to men of ordinary intelligence is something more than merely a fleeting or casual acquaintance"; US. v. Albanese, 554 F. 2d 543 ( 1977), association requires more than contact on a casual basis; DiMarco v. Greene, 13 Ohio Misc. 63 (1967), incidental contact, without more, is not sufficient to establish that a person is "associating" with another person. Refer to defendant/appellant's brief at Point III, pg.