ALGA HOPE, JR., PETITONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-5872

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1990

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit

   Response Of The United States To Petitioner's Suggestion Of Error

   The United States submits this Respone to a pleading filed by
petitioner on December 14, 1990, captioned "Suggestion of Error By The
United States."

   1. In his "Suggestion of Error," petitioner asserts that the
statement of the case in the Brief in Opposition filed by the United
States is erroneous for the following reasons:

         There were no interlocutory appeals in this case;  (t)here
      were no extortion counts in this case;  there were no false
      swearing counts in this case;  there were no new indictments in
      this case.

         There is no defendant named Hilario James in this case.

         All references by the United States to the foregoing matters
      as having occurred below are erroneous.

Pet. Suggestion of Error, at 2 (emphasis omitted).

   2. Although the statement of the case in the Brief in Opposition
was substantially correct, it incorrectly stated (Br. in Opp. 2, 5)
that the indictment in this case was brought after the Eleventh
Circuit ruled that a conspiracy count in another indictment brought
against petitioner ran afoul of Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107
(1987).  See United States v. Hope, 861 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1988).
In fact, the indictment on which petitoner was tried in this case and
the indictment at issue in 1988 Eleventh Circuit decision were both
filed on the same day -- November 20, 1986.

   Although the two indictments both arose from petitoner's operation
of his firm, EDCO, to obtain government funds illicitly, the
particular transactions and the particulr funds at issue in the two
cases are not the same.  This case involved petitoner's diversion of
$30,000 intended for The Learning Center through EDCO to a firm
controlled by petitoner named ATJ Industries (see Pet. App.
2840-2842);  the indictment that led to the 1988 Eleventh Circuit
decision charged that pettioner fraudulently used his position at EDCO
to obtain $75,000 for another firm in which petitoner had an ownership
interest named Sunbelt Recycled Rubber Collection Centers, Inc.  See
861 F.2d at 1575.

   3. In other respects, the statement filed in the Brief in
Opposition was correct.  The remaining facts recited by petitioner as
"erroneous" -- the existence of an interlocutory appeal, the extortion
and false statement charges, and the naming of Hilario James as a
co-defendant -- were plainly set out in the Brief in Opposition as
background information concerning the other indictment brought against
petitoner.  See Brief in Opp. 1, 5.

   Respectfully submitted.

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   DECEMBER 1990