Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Rosenfeld v. United States

167 F.2d 222

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-04-05
Topic
capital-markets-and-corporate-governance

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant guilty of contempt of *223court in disobeying an injunction which forbade violation of OPA rent regulations, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $1,000.00, or imprisonment for a period of six months. We think that the facts in evidence amply sustain the action of the District Judge in holding appellant guilty of contempt. We do not think, however, that the facts justify the penalty imposed. The violation of the rent regulation was of minor character, and there is no showing of a defiant attitude on the part of appellant or that he was a hardened offender.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rosenfeld v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
ROSENFELD v. UNITED STATES,167 F.2d 222(4th Cir. 1948)
ROSENFELD v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5710.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
April 5, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina, at Florence; J. Waties Waring, Judge.

M. Rosenfeld was adjudged guilty of contempt of court in disobeying an injunction forbidding violation of Office of Price Administration rent regulations, and he appeals.

Order affirmed as modified.
W.T. McGowan, Jr., and C.T. McDonald, both of Florence, S.C., for appellant.

Nathan Siegel, Special Litigation Attorney, Office of Housing Expediter of New York City (Ed Dupree, General Counsel, and Hugo V. Prucha, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Housing Expediter, both of Washington, D.C., and Ben Scott Whaley, U.S. Atty. of Charleston, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant guilty of contempt ofPage 223court in disobeying an injunction which forbade violation of OPA rent regulations, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $1,000.00, or imprisonment for a period of six months. We think that the facts in evidence amply sustain the action of the District Judge in holding appellant guilty of contempt. We do not think, however, that the facts justify the penalty imposed. The violation of the rent regulation was of minor character, and there is no showing of a defiant attitude on the part of appellant or that he was a hardened offender. We think that he will be sufficiently punished by a fine of $500.00, or imprisonment for three months, and understand that we have power to make such modification, when we conclude that the punishment imposed was not justified by the facts. United States v. United Mine Workers of America,330 U.S. 258,304,305,67 S.Ct. 677. The order appealed from will be modified accordingly. As so modified, it will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.Page 283