BINION
v.
UNITED STATES, ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL; AND COSTELLO V. UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Two petitioners convicted of income tax evasion sought bail pending appeal of a question regarding the proper criminal statute under which they should have been charged. The Supreme Court granted bail in both cases, finding that the unresolved legal question about whether the defendants should have been prosecuted under a misdemeanor provision rather than a felony provision presented sufficient grounds for bail pending the Court's decision in a related case addressing the same issue.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
Petitioners in both the above cases have applied to individual Justices for bail under Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The relevant legal circumstances concerning bail are identical in both cases. Both were convicted of income tax evasion involving § 145 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Both were sentenced to imprisonment for five years on each of three counts, the sentences to run concurrently. Both contend that they should have been sentenced under § 3616 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which makes it a misdemeanor (punishable by a maximum of one year’s imprisonment) to file a false return with intent to evade tax, the offense for which each was convicted. The question petitioners raise was discussed but not decided in Berra v. United States, 351 U. S.
131. This question is presented in Achilli v. United States, No. 430, which the Court has set for hearing during the week of April 29. Pending final determination of this question, we think petitioners are entitled to bail, the Government having presented no adequate reason why bail should not be granted.
Accordingly, petitioners are admitted to bail, pending the disposition of the Achilli case, by executing a good and sufficient bail bond in the sum of $25,000, the same to be approved by a district judge of the court in which petitioners were convicted. Following approval, the bond will be posted with the clerk of the district court.
Jacob Kossman for Binion. Edward' Bennett Williams and Morris Shilensky for Costello. Solicitor General Rankin for the United States.
Reported below: No. 666, 239 F. 2d 177.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1963)…S. S. Corp. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 63 (D. C. N. D. Ohio); Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605 (D. C. D. Del.). But cf. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 411 (D. C. N. D. Tex.), vacated as moot, 352 U. S. 1028; Seatrain Lines, Inc., v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 819 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). Compare generally Goodman, The History and [*671] Scope of Federal Power to Delay Changes in Transportation Rates, 27 I. C. C. Prac. J. 245 (1959), with Brooks and Daily,…
-
Municipal Light Boards of Reading and Wakefield Massachusetts v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 450 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1971)…on, “the exercise of that discretion is in no sense invulnerable to judicial review.” They rely on the line of cases springing from Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc. v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 411 (N.D.Tex.1956) (three-judge court), vacated as moot, 352 U.S. 1028, 77 S.Ct. 594, 1 L.Ed.2d 598 (1957).19 These cases, all preceding Arrow Transportation, involve the special situation of an order vacating a prior suspension, where the initial order was accompanied by statutorily prescribed reasons but the latter o…
-
Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States, 364 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1960)…t for the District of Delaware, so far as it relates to the suspension of rates phase of the dispute, is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the cause as moot. United States v. Amarillo-Borger Express, 352 U. S. 1028; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dixie Carriers, 355 U. S. 179. With respect to the antitrust phase of the dispute, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent on the holding of Georgia v. Pennsy…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1956)
- United States v. Costello, 239 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1956)