Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States v. Settimo Accardo (Accardi)

United States v. Settimo Accardo (Accardi), 208 F.2d 632 (3d Cir. 1953)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1953-12-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a judgment which canceled the appellant’s certificate of naturalization. He complains that the court was in error in finding that he committed fraud, that his certificate was illegally procured, and that in any event the matter was res judicata between him and the Government. We have the advantage of a very full and thoroughly considered opinion in this matter by Judge Hartshorne, of the District Court for the District of New Jersey. It is reported in 113 F.Supp. 783.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Settimo Accardo (Accardi). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
17 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ACCARDO,208 F.2d 632(3rd Cir. 1953)
UNITED STATES of America v. Settimo ACCARDO (Accardi), Appellant.
No. 11138.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued November 19, 1953.
Decided December 7, 1953.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Richard Hartshorne, Judge.
Jack Wasserman, Washington, D.C. (Anthony A. Calandra, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

Edward V. Ryan, Jersey City, (William F. Tompkins, U.S. Atty., for Dist. of N.J., Newark, N.J., Louis Steinberg, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Brooklyn, N.Y., Ira Fieldsteel, Attorney, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment which canceled the appellant's certificate of naturalization. He complains that the court was in error in finding that he committed fraud, that his certificate was illegally procured, and that in any event the matter was res judicata between him and the Government. We have the advantage of a very full and thoroughly considered opinion in this matter by Judge Hartshorne, of the District Court for the District of New Jersey. It is reported in113 F. Supp. 783. This opinion sets out the facts fully and discusses the legal propositions involved.

We agree with the conclusions reached by the district judge and think it would be a waste of words to add anything to his discussion.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.Page 633