U.S Department of Justice

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

United States

Attorneys Bulletin

Published by

Executive Office for United States Attorneys Washington D.C

For the use of all U.S Department of Justice Attorneys

____William Tyson Director

EXECUTIVE EditorinChief Susan Nellor FTS 6334024UNITED Editor Judith Campbell FTS 6736348STATESATTORNEYS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

COENDATIONS 279

CLEARINGHOUSESpeedy Trial Act 281

POINTS TO REMEMBERInternal Revenue Service Project 719...................... 282

JURIS Data Base List...................................... 282

Personnel 282

Teletypes to All United States Attorneys.................. 282

CAS ENOTESOFFICEOFTHESOLICITORGENERAL........................... 283

CIVIL DIVISION............................................ 284

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION..... 289

APPENDIX..... 291

VOL 33 NO 10 THIRTYSECOND YEAR May 24 1985

Please send cnange ot address to Editor United States AttorneysBulletin Room 1629 Main Justice Building 10th Pensylvania AvenueN.W Washington D.C 20530

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 279

COMMENDATIONS

Assistant United States Attorneys TATE CHAMBERS and

GREGORY HARRIS Central District of Illinois were commended byMr L.W Wiggs InspectorinCharge United States Postal Servicefor their enthusiasm and professionalism in the successful prosecution of United States Bileck

Assistant United States Attorney ANTHONY COCHRAN Northern

District of Georgia was commended by Mr Craig DonsantoDirector Election Crimes Branch Public Integrity SectionCriminal Division Department of Justice for his exemplary workin United States Brown

Assistant United States Attorney CHARLES CRANDALLSouthern District of California was commended by Mr Gerald

Hillier District Manager Bureau of Land Management CaliforniaDesert District Department of Interior for his successful prosecution of very important precedent setting case involving the

first cOnviction under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976

Assistant United States Attorney ROBERT CYNKAR EasternDistrict of Virginia was commended by Mr John Lawn ActingAdministrator Drug Enforcement Administration for his outstanding performance in bringing notorious Class herointrafficker and his chief lieutenant to justice

Assistant United States Attorney MYLES EASTWOOD NorthernDistrict of Georgia was commended by Mr Robert Serino DeputyChief Counsel Comptroller of the Currency for his generous and

valuable assistance in connection with several subpoena enforcement cases

Assistant United States Attorneys JOHN FISHER andRICHARD LETTS Southern District of Ohio were commended byMr David Ripa Special Agent in Charge United States CustomsService Department of Treasury for their excellent efforts in

prosecuting Columbus Auto Parts Company

Assistant United States Attorney CHARLES GORDER JRSouthern District of California was commended by Mr GaryPenrith Special Agent in Charge Federal Bureau of Investigationfor his exceptional presentation in the Matranga/Polizzi case

Assistant United States Attorney SHERRY HERRGOTT Districtof Arizona was commended by Mr William Webster DirectorFederal Bureau of Investigation for her outstanding efforts in

the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force investigation of

the Dirty Dozen Motorcycle Gang

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 280

Assistant United States Attorney JOHN HOUSTON SouthernDistrict of California was commended by Mr Gerald HillierDistrict Manager Bureau of Land Management California DesertDistrict Department of Interior for his work in the successfulprosecution and conviction of Evert Scott

Assistant United States Attorney PAUL KANTER CentralDistrict of Illinois was commended by Mr Paul Dollins Chiefof Police University Police Department University of Illinois at

UrbanaChampaign for his successful prosecution of RobertKindred

Assistant United States Attorney RICHARD LETTS SouthernDistrict of Ohio was commended by Mr Lary Clendinen ResidentAgent in Charge Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Departrnent of Treasury for his guidance and dedicated assistance in the

trial of John Rice

Assistant United States Attorney SHARON LOVELACE NorthernDistrict of Alabama was commended by Mr Harold Hughes DeputyGeneral Counsel United States Postal Service for her success in

obtaining dismissal in Downing United States Postal Service

Assistant United States Attorney HARRY MCCARTHY WesternDistrict of Washington was commended by Mr Paul AdamsInspector GeneralDesignate Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment for his work in the successful prosecution of

principals of NAN Partners

Assistant United States Attorney DONALD MOROZ NorthernDistrict of Indiana was commended by Mr Paul Adams InspectorGeneralDesignate Department of Housing and Urban Developmentfor his dedication and assistance in the prosecution of sevenindividual beneficiaries of the Housing Allowance Program

Assistant United States Attorney STUART NEWBERGERDistrict of Columbia was commended by Ms Joan ClarkAssistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Department of State for

exceptional professional support and dedication in Kline El

Salvador

Assistant United States Attorney STEPHEN SHEFLERNorthern District of California was commended by Mr T.DKeating Commanding Officer Naval Legal Service Office San

Francisco California Department of the Navy for his work in

concluding Medical Care Recovery Act case

Assistant United States Attorney EVAN SLAVITT District of

Massachusetts was presented an Outstanding Contribution Award bythe Boston Field Division Drug Enforcement Administration for

his success in obtaining the arrest and conviction of two Classviolators and $75000 fine from the Daly Drug Company

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 281

Assistant United States Attorney ERIC SWENSON NorthernDistrict of California was commended by Mr John WynesRegional Inspector General for Investigations General ServicesAdministration for his support and assistance in the prosecutionof Federal Protective Officer for abusing his position by makingimproper use of government funds

Assistant United States Attorney ROBERT WEIDNER Districtof Arizona was commended by Mr Larry Hultquist VicePresident Legal Division Farm Credit Banks of Sacramento for

his success in obtaining grand jury indictment of Martha BondDuncan

CLEARINGHOUSE

peedy Trial Act Administrative Office of the United StatesCourts Amended Guidelines and Southern District of Florida

Monograph Available

Two recent publications regarding judicial construction and

implementation of the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974as amended are available upon request from the Office of LegalServices

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts hasissued amended Guidelines to the Administration of the SpeedyTrial Act of 1974 which replace the December 1979 revision withamendments through October 1984

The Appellate Division of the United States AttorneysOffi-cefor the Southern District of Florida has prepared monograph onthe Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C 3161 et seq which surveys casesfrom all circuits and is designed to- help line assistants deal

with the practical problems of administering the Act The UnitedStates Attorneys office for the Southern District of Floridaintends to revise and update the monograph as necessary

Please contact Ms Susan Nellor Director Office of LegalServices at FTS 6334024 to request copies of either publication Please request item.number CH14 for the Guidelines and

item number CH15 for the monograph

Executive Office

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 282

POINTS TO REMEMBER

Internal Revenue Service Project 719

In an attempt to assist United States Attorneys in collectingvarious debts and judgments the Civil Division participates in

Internal Revenue Service Project 719 proqram which usesInternal Revenue Service computerized records to provide currentaddress information upon specific request

To participate in the program the requesting office mustsend to the Civil Division two items the debtors name and

the debtors Social Security number If the Social Securitynumber is not provided it is impossible for the request to beforwarded to the Internal Revenue Service

If the debtor has filed federal income tax return withinthree years the Internal Revenue computer will automaticallyprint an IBM card with the Street and city address reported by thedebtor on the tax return and send it to the Civil Division Ifthe debtor failed to file tax return within three years the IBM

card will read no record All of the IBM cards are forwardedto the United States Attorney making the request

IRS Project 719 is also used by the Criminal Division and is

specifically discussed at USAM 9120.210

Civil Division

JURIS Data Base List

Appended to this issue of the Bulletin is the most recentrevised JLJRIS Data Base Listing dated May 1985

Justice Management Division

Personnel

Effective April 29 1985 Anton Roland Valukus was court

appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District ofIllinois

Executive Office

Teletypes to All United States Attorneys

listing of recent teletypes sent by the Executive Officeis appended to this Bulletin If United States Attorneysoffice has not received one or more of these teletypes copies maybe obtained by contacting Ms Theresa Bertucci Chief of the

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 283

Communications Center Executive Office for United States Attorneys at FTS 6331020

Executive Office

CAS ENOTES

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

The Solicitor General has authorized the filing of

brief as amicus curiae in support of the petitioner in

Maine Moulton Ct No 84786 The issue is whether the

Sixth Amendment prohibits the use at trial of postindictmentstatements made by defendant to codefendant who was actingas an informant when the contact was initiated by the defendantand the investigation pertained not to the underlying crime but

to threats made by the defendant against the informant and other

prospective government witnesses

petition for writ of certiorari in Turnbo BurrusNo 831951 9th Cir Sept 25 1984 rehearing denied Jan1985 The issues are Whether the courts of sending state

in this case the federal government have jurisdiction under the

Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act to enjoin the transfer of

prisoner to receiving state for trial there and Whetherthe antishuttling provisions of the Act are violated whenprisoner is returned to the sending state after dismissal of the

indictment in the receiving state

jurisdictional statement in Department of the TreasuryGalioto No 842045 D.N.J Feb 1985 The issue is whether

former mental patients constitutional rights are violated byfederal statutory provisions which prohibit persons with historyof mental illness from owning guns and which provide no opportunity for removing such disability in individual cases

petition for .a writ of certiorari in ICC State of Texas749 F.2d 1144 5th Cir 1985 The issue as in ICC TnStateMotor Transit Co petition filed Mar 25 1985Ts whether the

Hobbs Act bars party from relitigating the validity of an agencyrule after the rule has been upheld by another court of appealsand the statutory 60day period for seeking judicial review has

expired

brief as amicus curiae in support of respondents in

Midlaritic National Bank New Jersey Dept of EnvironmentalProtection Ct No 84801 and ONeill City of New York

Ct No 84805 The issue is whether trustee in bankruptcymust comply with state laws regulating the disposal of

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 284

hazardous wastes when exercising his power under Section 554 of

the Bankruptcy Code to abandon property that is financial burdento the bankrupt estate

CIVIL DIVISION

D.C CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.IS NOTREQUIRED TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE OFFICES FOR LABORAND MANAGEMENT MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

The National Railroad Adjustment Board NRAB consists of 17

labor and 17 manaqement members who are paid by their sponsorsTogether with neutral referees paid by the government they sit

in panels of three to decide contractual disputes in the industryEver since the Board was created about 50 years ago it has

provided headquarters in Chicago at qovernment expense includingindividual private offices for the labor and management membersIn 1983 however in order to provide more money for hirinqneutral referees needed to resolve pending cases the NationalMediation Board which supervises the NRABs budget decided to

eliminate the private offices for Board members This decisionwas challenged by the organization representing the labor unionsthe unions were supported by the management organization as amicuscuriae The district court held that the controlling statutes did

not mandate individual private offices and the D.C Circuit has

now affirmed that holding

Railway Labor Executives Association National MediationBoard ____F.2d ____

No 845160 D.C Cir Apr .1985145101921

Attorneys Robert Greenspan Civil Division FTS6335428 Marc Richman Civil Division FTS 6335735

D.C CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT NATIONAL BANKS CAN ACQUIREBROKERAGE FIRMS BUT THAT THE BROKERAGE OFFICES BECOMEBRANCH BANKS SUBJECT TO STATE LAW RESTRICTIONS

In Securities Industry Assn Board of Governors 104 S.Ct3003 1984 the Supreme Court held that bank holding companiescould acquire discount brokerage firms In the present case the

Comptroller of the Currency authorized two national banks to

acquire brokerage firm or to provide brokerage services throughanoperating subsidiary of the bank without resorting to the bank

holding company structure. The Securities Industry Assn representing most national stock brokerage firms challenged the

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 285

Comptrollers decision The district court accepted our argumentthat operation of brokerage business by national bank did not

violate the GlassSteagall Act The court however then held

that all offices of the bank that deal in securities become branch

banks subject to the restrictions of the McFadden Act The

principal restrictions are that bank may not have branches in

more than one state and that national banks are subject to the

same restraints on branching that the state imposes on its own

state banks Both the federal qovernment and SIA appealed

The D.C Circuit has now affirmed both holdings of the court

below in one paragraph per curiam opinion Judge Scaliadissented from the holding erse to the government In his

view SIA lacked standing to assert the branching argument becausesecurities firms are not within the zone of interests of the

McFadden Act which was intended to protect state.banks not the

securities industry The district court and presumably the

majority Judges Wright and Ginsburg held that SIA was within the

zone of interests of the GlassSteagall Act and for that reasoncould assert claim under the McFadden Act Because there is an

intracircuit conflict on the issue of whether litigant who is

within the zone of interests protected by one statute has standingto assert -claim under different statute we are now givingcareful consideration to seeking rehearing en banc

Securities Industry Assn Comptroller of the CurrencyF.2d ____ Nos 845026 and 845085 D.C Cir Apr 121985 J. 145115905

Attorneys Anthony Steinmeyer Civil Division- FTS

6333388 Mark Gallant Civil Division FTS 6333425

D.C CIRCUIT VACATES DISTRICT COURT DECISION ORDERINGTHE DISCLOSURE OF -CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AND ORDERS REMANDTO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

In August 1982 Peterzell made Freedom of Information Act

FOIA request directed to the Central Intelligence Agency CIAseeking inter alia all documents describing or authorizing CIAcovert operations in Central America which were approved byPresident -Reagan in the last year The CIA identified 15- such

documents and withheld them all as properly classified pursuant to

an ExeÆutive Order in the interest of national security exemptionand as specifically exempt from disclosure by statute exemp

tion 3.- After the CIA indicated-that 15 documents -were responsive to Pete.rzells request concerning Central America Peterzell

argued that the United States covert presence in Nicaragua was

public knowledge and that accordingly documents pertaining to

such activities did not qualify for-FOIA immunity The districtcourt initially granted summary judgment to the governmentLater however after Peterzell moved for reconsideration based on

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 286

further statements by Executive and congressional officialsregarding United States activities in Nicaragua the districtcourt reversed its prior ruling and ordered the release of all 15documents The court found the additional statements to besufficient evidence of official acknowledgment of covert actionin Nicaragua to warrant release of the documents Seeking relieffrom this second ruling the government offered for in camerainspection classified affidavit and classified memorandum oflaw to show that the documents should not be released Thedistrict court denied the governments motion without viewingeither of the proffered submissions and without viewing thedocuments

On appeal we argued that only the Executive BranchnotCongress or the presscould officially acknowledge involvementin covert actions in Nicaragua and that in this case no suchExecutive Branch statement was made We also argued that ifthere were an official acknowledgment it was at best generaland therefore did not require the release of specific details ofsuch operations It also did not require the release of documentspertaining to other Central American countries Finally weargued that the district court erred in refusing to view the documents and the two additional in camera submissions before orderingthe release of the documents

The court of appeals did not reach the official acknowledgment question because it determined that the case had to beremanded on the latter two grounds Accordingly it vacated thedistrict courts official acknowledgment determination andremanded the case for examination of the documents the in camerasubmissions and any other evidence the parties may bmit onremand

Peterzell Department of State and Central IntelligenceAgency ___F.2d ___ No. 845805 D.C Cir Apr 1985

1452393.

Attorneys Leonard Schaitman Civil Division FTS 6333441Howard Scher Civil Division FTS 6334820

FIRST CIRCUIT HOLDS THERE IS NO FEDERAL JURISDICTIONOVER ACTION TO ENJOIN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FROM ACTING ASARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY CONTRACT

This action arose out of claims filed with the Department ofLabor by employees of an independent contractor whose contractto provide elderly and handicapped services was terminated bytwo rural transportation authorities in Massachusetts Theemployees claimed that they were entitled to the benefits of thestandard warranty inserted in all agreements with the Massachu

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 287

setts Department of Transportation that provided federal fundingto local transit authorities The warranty contained disputesresolution clause that named the Department of Labor as fallback arbitrator The employees asserted they had been unable to

agree with plaintiffs on any procedure to settle the dispute and

asked the Department of Labor to assume jurisdiction

The Secretary designated an employee as arbitrator but

plaintiffs challenged the Secretarys jurisdiction in districtcourt action federal magistrate recommended dismissing the

complaint primarily on grounds of arbitral immunity Thedistrict court dismissed the complaint but on the basis that the

Secretarys arbitration was an action committed to agency discretion under law The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal on

different grounds It agreed with our argument that in light of

the Supreme Courts decision in Jackson Transit Authority LocalDivision 1285 ATU 457 U.S 15 1982section 13c agreementsbetween UMTA aid recipients and transit unions are governed bystate law applied in state courts the complaint failed to set

out substantial federal question capable of sustaining federal

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1331 This decision helps to establish that all disputes arising from the special warranty should

go to state courts

Greenfield and Montague Transportation Area DonovanF.2d____ No 841547 1st dr Mar 29 1985 D.

T102352

Attorneys John Cordes Civil Division FTS 6333380Christine Whittaker Civil Division FTS 6334096

SEVENTH CIRCUIT GRANTS PETITION FOR MANDAMUS VACATINGORDER REQUIRING PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF SECRETARY OFLABOR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS ....

Following trial of action.brouqht by the Department of Laboragainst former trustees of the Central States Southeast and

Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund for breach of fiduciaryduties the parties indicated that settlement was ossibleAccordingly the district court withheld its decision and presidedover series of settlement discussions Most issues weresettled however the Department of Labor indicated that it could

not accept language that would permit the former and currenttrustees to be reimbursed for their fees in defending the Departments action if there was any -breach of fiduciary duty Thedistrict court was of the view that the .Departments position was

idiotic became exasperated with the Department attorneysincluding the Solicitor of Labor and ordered the personalappearance of the Secretary of Labor on April 23 1985 if -settl-ement was not reached before that time

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 288

We sought stay of that order in the district court topermit us to seek mandamus from the court of appeals. Thedistrict court denied the stay and we sought stay from thecourt of appeals simultaneously with our petition On FridayApril 19 1985 at P.M the court of appeals advised us thatit had granted our petition for mandamus and would issue an orderon Monday April 22 1985 This extraordinary relief will preventwhat might have been an unnecessary constitutional confrontationbetween the Judiciary and the Executive

Ford Will F.2d 7th Cir Apr 19 1985145101930

Attorneys Leonard Schaitman Civil Division FTS 6333441Freddi Lipstein Civil Division FTS 6333542

NINTH CIRCUIT IN RESPONSE TO OUR PETITION FOR REHEARINGAND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC WITHDRAWS EARLIERPANEL OPINION CREATING RIGHT TO NOTICE OF THE RIGHTTO APPLY FOR ASYLUM AND ISSUES .A NEW PANEL OPINIONREJECTING THE CLAIMED RIGHT TO SUCH NOTICES

Leonillo and Shirley Durari both natives of the Philippinesentered the United States in 1974 and 1972 respectively andboth illegally overstayed their visas During deportation proceedings in 1981 the Durans conceded their deportability andagreed to voluntary departure Instead of departinq howeverthey hired new counsel and moved to reopen the proceedingsMr Duran based his motion on his belated desire to requestasylum and Mrs Duran based her motion on the theory that herdeportation would cause extreme hardship The immigration judgedenied both motions to reopen and the Board of ImmigrationAppeals affirmed those denials

On petition for reviw the court of appeals in its May 141984 decision reversed and izemanded for further administrativeproceedings In so ruling the court of appeals announced broadnew statutory right to notice of the right to apply for asylumIn addition the court faulted the immigration judge for failingto inform Mrs Durari of her apparent eligibility to seek suspension of deportation on the ground of possible extreme hardship

The government filed petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en bane in view of the potentially disastrousconsequenes of rule that would require specific notice in alleases of the right to apply for asylum After considering thematter for nine months the panel has now withdrawn its originalopinion and has issued new decision affirming the denial of MrDurans motion to reopen his deportation proceeding in order toseek asylum The panel however continued to adhere to its

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 289

earlier rulingon Mrs Durans motion to reopen insisting thatshe be given an opportunity to show extreme hardship and chidingthe immigration judge for failing to advise her of her apparenteligibility to pursue such claim

The panels withdrawal of its initial decision creatingduty to notify all aliens of their right to apply for asylum is

substantial victory for the government Although we are still

considering whether further appellate review is appropriate withregard to the courts reopening of Mrs Durans claim this decision nO longer threatens to impose massive burdens 011 and disruptions of the asylum process

Duran INS ____F.2d ____ No 827193 9th Cir Apr1985 3912C1648

Attorneys Barbara Herwig Civil Division FTS 6335425Michael Jay Singer Civil Division FTS 6334815

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

COURT ORDERS APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASEINVOLVING MENTALLY RETARDED

The court ordered that the final settlement agreement in this

case be approved ruling that the settlement agreement which had

been signed by all parties and followed more than ten years of

active litigation was fair adequate and reasonable The agreement will affect all mentally retarded persons who resided at

Pennhurst State School and Hospital on and after May 30 1974 as

well as all retarded persons on the Pennhurst waiting list as of

that date who had received habilitative services in the communitypursuant to prior orders of the district court Under the termsof the settlement Pennsylvania and several of its counties have

agreed to provide community living arrangements to members of the

plaintiff class for whom such placement is deemed appropriate bythe individual planning process together with such communityservices as are necessary to provide each person with minimallyadequate habilitation until such time as the retarded individualno longer is in need of such living arrangement and/or communityservices Each member of the plaintiff class is also entitled to

an individualized habilitation plan and program with appropriatereview and monitoring of the services to be providedAdditionally all class members are to be afforded protection from

harm safe conditions adequate shelter and clothing medicalhealthrelated and dental care protection from physical and

psychological abuse neglect or mistreatment protection from

unreasonable restraint and the use of seclusion and protection

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 290

from the administration of excessive or unnecessary medicationUnder the terms of the agreement Perinhurst is scheduled to close

by July 1986 with the court retaining jurisdiction over the

case until July 1989 The United States plaintiffintervenorin this case signed the agreement and requested the courtsapproval of the settlement at hearing on December 1984

Pennhurst State School and Hospital Halderinan F.2dC.A 741345 Apr 1985 144621085

Attorneys Mitchell Dale Civil Rights Division FTS

2726055 Larry Goldberg Civil Rights Division FTS2726052

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 291

JURIS DATA BASE LISTINGRevised May 1985

CASELAW

U.S Supreme Court 178 U.S 1900 SlipsFederal Reporter 2d Series 300 F.2d 1962 SlipsFederal Supplement 332 F.Supp 1970 SlipsCourt of Claims 134 Ct Cl 223 Ct Cl

1956 April 30 1980Federal Rules Decisions 73 F.R.D 1976 SlipsCourt of Military Review C.M.R 50 C.M.R

19511975Military Justice Reporter M.J.R Slips

1974 PresentAtlantic 2d Reporter 370 A.2d 1977 Present

D.C cases onlyBankruptcy Reporter B.R 1979 SlipsClaims Court Cl.Ct 1982 Slips

STATLAW STATUTORY LAW

Public Laws 93rd 98th Congress1149 and 473

United States Code 1976 Edition Includina

SuppExecutive Orders 12/31/47 2/12/85Civil Works Laws Vols 14 8/1790

11/1966 and SelectedPublic Laws to 7/1 983

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 Pub No 98473 CCCAPub No 98573 TariffAct Pub No 98596Fine Enforcement Act and

Criminal Division Handbookon the Comprehensive CrimeControl Act of 1984

ADMIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Published Comptroller General Decisions Vols 163 1921November1983

Unpublished Comptroller General Decisions 1/5/51 6/30/84Opinions of the Attorney General Vols 143 17911980O.L.C Memorandums Vols 13 19771979

New JURIS File

Major File Additions

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 292

Board of Contract Appeals Vols 562 to 8327/5611/83

Federal Labor Relations Authority Vols 114 1/795/84Decisions Reports on Rulings of the

Asst Sec of Labor for Labor A/SLMR A/SLMRManagement Relations 1/7312/78

Federal Labor Relations Council Vols 16 1/7012/78Rulings on Requests of the Asst Sec

of Labor for Labor Management Relations Volume 2/706/75HJD Administrative Law Decisions Selected DecisionsMerit Systems Protection Board Vols 111 2/79 9/82Board of Imrigration Appeals Decisions Vols 14 197218 1984

and slips

REGS FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Code of Federal Regulations 1982 Edition Titles845 50

1983 Edition Titles and

48

1984 Edition Titles 145750

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations October 1984 Edition

DIGEST WEST HEADNOTES

Supreme Court Reporter 1961 advance sheetsFederal Reporter 2d Series 1960 advance sheetsFederal Supplement 1960 advance sheetsFederal Rules Decisions 1960 advance sheets

Regional Reporters State Cases 1967 advance sheets

TAX

U.S Tax Court Decisions Vols 166 11/42 9/76U.S Board of Tax Appeals Decisions Vols 19 47 2/3011/42Enforcement Decisions Tax Divisions Summons

Enforcement DecisionsCurrent to 3/1/84

Tax Protesters Tax Division Tax ProtesterDecision List

FORENSIC SCIENCE MidAtlantic Association of Forensic ScientistsNewsletter

Scientific Sleuthing Newsletter July 1976 Winter 1985

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 293

SHEPARDS CITATIONS

United States Reports 1944 Present

Supreme Court Reporter 1944 Present

Lawyers Edition 1st 2d Series 1944 PresentFederal Reporter 1970 PresentFederal Reporter Second Series 1970 PresentFederal Supplement 1970 PresentFederal Rules Decisions 1970 PresentCourt of Claims 1970 PresentCourt Martial Reports 1951 PresentMilitary JusticeReporter 1975 Present

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Bevans Treaties and Other International

Agreements of the United States Vols 112 17761949United States Treaties and Other

International Agreements Vols 132 1/50 12/81

Department of Defense UnpublishedInternational Agreements 6/47 1/84

WRKPRDT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORK PRODUCTS

Criminal Division Monographs Selected Monographs

BRIEFS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BRIEFS

Office of the Solicitor General Briefs Briefs since the 10/1982Term

Civil Division Briefs Selected Appellate Briefs

11/81 PresentCivil Division Trial Briefs Selected Trial Briefs 1977

PresentCivil Rights Division Briefs Selected Appellate Briefs

1/80 PresentLand and Natural Resources Selected Appellate Briefs

Division Briefs 12/83 Present

INDLAW INDIAN LAW

Opinions of the Solicitor Interior Vols and 1917 1974Ratified Treaties 1778 1880

Unratified Treaties 1801 1868

Presidential Proclamations 1879 1968

Executive Orders and Other Orders

Pertaining to Indians 1871 1971

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 294

FOIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

FOIA Update Newsletter Vol No VolNo Fall 1979

Fall 1984FOIA Short Guide FOIA Case List Publication

September 1984 Edition

REFERENZ TRAINING AIDS FOR JURIS USERS

JURIS Reference Manual Parts IV November 1984 Edition

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 295

TELETYPES

042485 From Madison Brewer Director Office of ManagementInformation Systems and Support by Tim MurphyAssistant Director Debt Collection Staff re DirectDeposit System

042485 From Richard Kidwell Assistant DirectorFacilities Management and Support Services Staff reNew District Assignments

042985 From Madison Brewer Director Office of ManagementInformation Systems and Support re 1985 Annual Word

Processing Report

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 296

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS LIST

DISTRICT U.S ATTORNEY

Alabama Frank Donaldson

Alabama John Bell

Alabama Sessions III

Alaska Michael SpaanArizona Stephen McNarree

Arkansas George Proctor

Arkansas Asa Hutchinson

California Joseph Russoniello

California Donald AyerCalifornia Robert Bonner

California Peter Nunez

Colorado Robert Miller

Connecticut Alan Nevas

Delaware Joseph Farnan JrDistrict of Colunibia Joseph diGenova

Florida Thomas Dillard

Florida Robert Merkle

Florida Stanley Marcus

Georgia Larry Thompson

Georgia Joe Whitley

Georgia Hinton Pierce

Guam David Wood

Hawaii Daniel Bent

Idaho William Vanhole

Illinois Anton Valukus

Illinois Frederick Hess

Illinois Gerald Fines

Indiana Lawrence Steele JrIndiana John Tinder

Iowa Evan Huitman

Iowa Richard Turner

Kansas Benjamin Burgess JrKentucky Louis DeFalaise

Kentucky Ronald Meredith

Louisiana John Volz

Louisiana Stanford Bardwell JrLouisiana Joseph Cage JrMaine Richard Cohen

Maryland Frederick Motz

Massachusetts William Weld

Michigan Joel Shere

Michigan John Smietanka

Minnesota James Rosenbaurn

Mississippi Glen Davidson

Mississippi George PhillisMissouri Thomas Dittmeier

Missouri Robert Ulrich

VOL 33 NO 10 MAY 24 1985 PAGE 297

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

DISTRICT U.S ATTORNEYMontana Byron DunbarNebraska Ronald LahnersNevada William MaddoxNew Hampshire Bruce KennaNew Jersey Hunt DumontNew Mexico William Lutz

New York Frederick Scullin JrNew York Rudolph GiulianiNew York Raymond DeaneNew York Salvatore MartocheNorth Carolina Samuel CurrinNorth Carolina Kenneth McAllisterNorth Carolina Charles BrewerNorth Dakota Rodney WebbOhio Patrick McLaughlinOhio Christopher BarnesOklahoma Layn PhillipsOklahoma Roger HilfigerOklahoma William PriceOregon Charles TurnerPennsylvania Edward Dennis JrPennsylvania James WestPennsylvania Alan JohnsonPuerto Rico Daniel LopezRornoRhode Island Lincoln AlmondSouth Carolina Henry Dargan McMasterSouth Dakota Philip HogenTennessee John Gill JrTennessee Joe BrownTennessee Hickman Ewing JrTexas James RolfeTexas Henry OnckenTexas Robert WorthamTexas Helen EversberqUtah Brent WardVermont George Cook

Virgin Islands James DiehmVirginia Elsie MunsellVirginia John AldermanWashington John LampWashington Gene AndersonWest Virginia William KolibashWest Virginia David Faber

Wisconsin Joseph StadtmuellerWisconsin John ByrnesWyoming Richard StacyNorth Mariana Islands David Wood