Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Giro DAMIANO, Appellant, v. Albert R. ARCHIBALD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, Baltimore District, Appellee, 1934 — 71 F.2d 1021 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Giro DAMIANO, Appellant, v. Albert R. ARCHIBALD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, Baltimore District, Appellee
71 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Giro DAMIANO, Appellant, v. Albert R. ARCHIBALD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, Baltimore District, Appellee.
No. 3659.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 15, 1934.
Eoger O’Donnell, of Washington, D. C. (E. Palmer Ingram, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph L. Carter, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md. (James K. Cullen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated by the District Judge in his opinion reported in 5 F. Supp. 297, the order appealed from will be affirmed. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hamburg-American Line v. United States, 54 S. Ct. 491, 78 L. Ed. 887, does not touch the question here involved. It was there said that, where a returning alien has the permit prescribed by section 10 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA § 210), no fine can be imposed under section 16 of the act (8 USCA § 216) upon the transportation company bringing him in. The case contains no intimation that the alien is not subject to deportation if admitted upon ,a permit to which he was not legally en.titled.
Affirmed.