Bloom v. Independent Bankers Ass'n of America

holding that assault as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 113(d) does not require intent to injure | noting that the "magistrate was therefore correct in refusing to read into subdivision (d) the requirement of intent to do bodily harm” | illegally seized evidence that had been suppressed in state proceeding could be used to prove the “entirely separate offense” of peijury before a federal grand jury | state authorities illegally seized drugs and drug paraphernalia; the evidence was later used in a federal prosecution for perjury before a federal grand jury | “[A]n agency’s interpretation of its governing statute, with the expectation that regulated parties will conform to and rely on this interpretation, is final agency action fit for judicial review.” | one of criteria in evaluating finality is whether agency action has force of law | ”[R]egardless of private contract law and superficial form, any facility that performs traditional bank functions of receiving or disbursing funds is a ‘branch’ of a national bank ... if (1) the facility is ... owned or rented by the national bank, and (2 | "[R]egardless of private contract law and superficial form, any facility that performs traditional bank functions of receiving or disbursing funds is a 'branch' of a national bank ... if (1) the facility is ... owned or rented by the national bank, and (2