# Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,752 United States of America v. David Israel Namer

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 22, 1982 · 680 F.2d 1088

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469354

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Israel NAMER, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 22, 1982
- **Citations:** 680 F.2d 1088; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17213
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Clark, Garwood, Gee, Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469354

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the presumption of deference when warrant affidavit included reckless and material misrepresentations
- noting that “the analytical concepts of materiality and recklessness are often bound together”

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing, 680 F.2d 1088 , on behalf of the United States obviously misses the thrust of our opinion in asserting that we questioned the integrity of Assistant United States Attorney Pauline Hardin. This is incorrect.
*1099 The crucial phrase in the affidavit in issue characterized Deputy Securities Commissioner Stansbury’s ad hoc, oral opinion as a “classification.” We held that this was an improper characterization of Stansbury’s comments, which was so vitally material to the substance of the affidavit that misrepresentation would amount to reckless disregard for truth. In the alternative, we held that if the characterization was intended to convey no more than Stansbury’s informal feelings about the security status of loan commitments, the affidavit was legally insufficient to support the warrant. Thus, it can be seen that we did not decide which characterization had been intended since neither would carry the point.
The court writes further solely to make clear that Ms. Hardin’s integrity was not necessarily implicated in our decision cast, as it was, in the alternative. Certainly her integrity was not impugned.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469354. Public record. Not legal advice.