Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee, v. Reginald A. HAWKINS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-08-16
Citations: 365 F.2d 559
Docket Number: No. 10062
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee, v. Reginald A. HAWKINS, Appellant.
Judges: Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 365
Pages: 559–563

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee, v. Reginald A. HAWKINS, Appellant.
No. 10062.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1966.
Decided Aug. 16, 1966.
Melvyn Zarr, New York City (Thomas Wyche, Charles V. Bell, J. Levonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C., Jack Green-berg, New York City, and Anthony G. Amsterdam, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant.
Theodore C. Brown, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen. of North Carolina (T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Hawkins, a dentist, was indicted by a state grand jury charged with unlawful interference with a voting registration commissioner in the discharge of her duties and with the unlawful procurement of the registration of four un-qualified voters. He undertook to remove the prosecution to the District Court. We affirm the order of remand.
In the removal petition, it is alleged that he merely rendered requested assistance to the commissioner, that he made no representations about the qualifications of any voter, that the state's purpose was to harass and deter him, and, in conclusionary language, that he could not obtain a fair trial in North Carolina's courts. His allegations as to what transpired on the particular occasion are in contradiction of the specific charges of the indictment.
It is clear that this is not a case removable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443. Compare City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944; with State of Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925; see Baines v. City of Danville, 384 U.S. 890, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 996, affirming Baines v. City of Danville, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 756; and Wallace v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 891, 86 S.Ct. 1916, 16 L.Ed.2d 996, affirming Commonwealth of Virginia v. Wallace, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 105.
Affirmed.