Case: UNITED STATES of America v. Reginald A. LEWIS, Appellant (two cases); UNITED STATES of America v. Charles LEE, Appellant; UNITED STATES of America v. Cleo GRAHAM, Jr., Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Lewis
Decision Date: 1973-09-20
Docket Number: Nos. 72-1719, 72-1720, 72-1745 and 72-1895
Citation: 159 U.S. App. D.C. 4
Volume: 159
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Reginald A. LEWIS, Appellant (two cases). UNITED STATES of America v. Charles LEE, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Cleo GRAHAM, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT, McGOWAN, TAMM, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, ROBB and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
486 F.2d 1264
UNITED STATES of America v. Reginald A. LEWIS, Appellant (two cases). UNITED STATES of America v. Charles LEE, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Cleo GRAHAM, Jr., Appellant.
Nos. 72-1719, 72-1720, 72-1745 and 72-1895.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued En Banc May 21, 1973.
Decided Sept. 20, 1973.
W. Anthony Fitch, Williamsburg, Va., with whom Stanley Herr, Washington, D. C., was on the motion for appellant in Nos. 72-1719 and 72-1720.
Peter H. Wolf, Washington, D. C., was on the motion for appellants in Nos. 72-1745 and 72-1895.
W. Gary Kohlman with whom Marilyn Cohen, Washington, D. C., was on the motion for Public Defender Service as amicus curiae.
Richard L. Beizer, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., was on the motion for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT, McGOWAN, TAMM, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, ROBB and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
In these three pending criminal appeals, motions were made in this Court that there be included in the records on appeal such pre-sentence reports (Rule 32(c), Fed.R.Crim.P.) and evaluation reports provided for in the Youth Corrections Act (18 U.S.C. § 5010(e)) as were before the District Court for sentencing purposes in these three cases. No opposition was filed by the Government to any of the motions. When the motions came on for hearing pursuant to our sua sponte order for en banc consideration, the Government represented that its lack of opposition derived from the fact that the reports in question had in each in stance been made unrestrictedly available by the District Court to trial counsel before sentence was passed; and that, under such circumstances, it saw no reason for denying them to appellate counsel for inclusion in the appellate record in connection with the challenges raised on appeal to the adult sentences imposed upon appellants.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
Ordered that the motions be granted; that the District Court, to the extent it has not already done so, make available to appellate counsel in these cases the reports in question; and that the Clerk be directed, when requested to do so, to make such reports part of the records upon which these appeals will be decided ; and it is
Further ordered that, to the extent that any of the trial judges in these cases shall so order, the reports shall be delivered to appellate counsel under seal for use by such counsel alone; and such reports shall be under seal if and when they are included in the appellate record.