DURHAM

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Morgan v. State, 142 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
  …tion now generally contained in them would not be available.” (The footnote above refers to the previously cited case of Williams v. New York, supra). [*312] Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in Durham v. United States, 1960, 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 83, 5 L.Ed.2d 77. United States v. Greathouse, D.C. 1960, 188 F.Supp. 765, adhering to the Durham pronouncement, declared that a pre-sentence report is not a public record but rather a confidential document for use by the judge as an aid i…
• Navinchandra Mafatlal Jarecha v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 417 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1969)
  …e Attorney General has the authority to delegate to subordinates his power to exercise discretion under Section 245. Section 103 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1103.3 See Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405, 406, 80 S.Ct. 1139, 4 L.Ed.2d 1299, rehearing denied 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 30, 5 L.Ed.2d 77 (1960); Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345, n. 8. Furthermore, the Attorney General has exercised his [*224] authority to delegate his power given by Section 108 and has issued a regulation to that effect, 8 C.F.R.S.ec. 3.1(d) (1),…
• Dillon v. United States, 307 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1962)
  …concerning the propriety of the disclosure of presentence investigation reports after a plea or verdict of guilty has been entered, the better view seems to be that expressed in United States v. Durham,3 D.C. 1960, 181 F.Supp. 503 certiorari denied, 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 83, 5 L.Ed.2d 77; and in United States v. Greathouse,4 D.C. Ala. 1960, 188 F.Supp. 765, and in Hoover v. United States, supra. And see Williams v. New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337. Appellant’s reliance upon Secti…