362 U.S. 600
80 S.Ct. 960
4 L.Ed.2d 980
Harry NEEDELMAN, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America.
No. 278.
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1959.
May 16, 1960
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1960.
See 363 U.S. 858, 80 S.Ct. 1606.
Herbert A. Warren, Jr., Miami, Fla., for petitioner.
Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
After hearing oral argument, and further study of the record, we conclude that the record does not adequately present the questions tendered in the petition. Accordingly the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, whom Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN join.
Considering the volume of cases which invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction—as of today 1,092 such cases have been passed on during this Term—it would be indeed surprising if in each Term there were not two or three instances of petitions which, after passing through the preliminary sifting process, did not survive the scrutiny of oral argument. See the cases collected in Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70, 77-78, 75 S.Ct. 614, 99 L.Ed. 897, and, more recently, Triplett v. Iowa, 357 U.S. 217, 78 S.Ct. 1358, 2 L.Ed.2d 1361; Joseph v. Indiana, 359 U.S. 117, 79 S.Ct. 720, 3 L.Ed.2d 673; and Phillips v. New York, 362 U.S. 456, 80 S.Ct. 874. But this is not one of them. The specific questions which were presented by the petition for certiorari are not now found to be frivolous nor do they raise disputed questions of fact, nor does the record otherwise appropriately preclude answers to them. In my view they call for answers against the claims of the petitioner and I would therefore affirm the judgment. In view of the disposition of the case elaboration is not called for.