Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Amando Sulimenario Lumantes, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 232 F.2d 216
March 13, 1956
Jackson & Hertogs, Joseph Hertogs, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Lloyd H. Burke, U.S. Atty., James B. Schnake, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before McALLISTER and LEMMON, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District judge.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a judgment of the District Court under 8 U.S.C.A. 1451, revoking the naturalization of appellant.
It is conceded that appellant falsely misrepresented his marital status throughout the naturalization proceedings, but appellant denies that the misrepresentation was 'willful' within the meaning of the statute.
After hearing appellant testify, viewing his demeanor and manner, and judging his credibility in the light of all the evidence, the trial court found inter alia that appellant 'wilfully misrepresented his marital status with knowledge of the falsity and intent to deceive the Government.' Fed.R.Civ.Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; Knauer v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 654, 660, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1500.
Upon oral argument appellant stated in effect that the sole question presented on appeal is whether the evidence in support of the finding as to appellant's state of mind is "clear, unequivocal, and convincing." Id., 328 U.S. at page 657, 66 S.Ct. at page 1037.
We find no rational ground for differing with the trial court on the issue as to appellant's intent and, for reasons concisely stated in the opinion written by the learned District Judge, United States v. Lumantes, D.C.N.D.Cal.1955, 139 F.Supp. 574, the judgment is affirmed.