Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

02/03/87 United States of America v. Edward W. Bloomer

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT


February 3, 1987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EDWARD W. BLOOMER, APPELLANT 86-3019, 86-3020, 86-3021, 86-3022, 86-3023, 86-3024, 86-3025, 86-3026, 1987.CDC.44 DATE FILED: FEBRUARY 3, 1987

Before: RUTH B. GINSBURG, WILLIAMS and D. H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Rules of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals may limit citation of unpublished opinions. Please refer to the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Criminal No. 83-00269-01.

APPELLATE PANEL:

Defendants appeal from their motions to dismiss the informations. The sole issue raised on appeal is the alleged selectivity of defendants' prosecutions. Defendants concede they have violated a regulation this court has upheld against constitutional challenge. See White House Vigil for the ERA Comm. v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1984); United States v. Grace, 778 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 157 (1986).

Defendants received notice of the illegality of their conduct and were accorded a fair opportunity to conform their behavior to the legal requirements. From the evidence presented, it is plain that the district court was not required to infer that defendants were singled out for prosecution among others similarly situated, or that their prosecutions were improperly motivated. See Wayte v. United States, 105 S. Ct. 1524 (1985). Defendants cannot reasonably claim that their deliberate violations must be bracketed with the momentary or isolated activity of tourists or other passers-by who happened onto the sidewalk. Nor is the invidious purpose a compelled inference from the fact that arrests concentrated on persons who sought to test the regulation, and so deliberately called attention to their violations, or on persons who repeatedly violated the regulation,* See United States v. Mangieri, 694 F.2d 1270, 1273 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Attorney General v. Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 932 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1172 (1983); Attorney General v. Irish People, Inc., 796 F.2d 520, 525 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

JUDGMENT

These appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and were briefed and argued by counsel for the parties. The court has reviewed the issue presented and has determined that the cases occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 13(c). For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, by this Court, that the judgment from which these appeals have been taken is affirmed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, by this Court, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See Local Rule 14, as amended on November 30, 1981 and June 15, 1982. This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party at any time to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for good cause shown.

PER CURIAM DECISION

19870203

© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.