UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EDWARD A. BECKELHYMER, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy count.
Defendant was convicted of violating the Gun Control Act of 1968 and conspiring to do so. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the jury verd…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Sentence Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The opinion of this court dated May 15, 1973, is withdrawn and the following opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court.
Beckelhymer was convicted by a jury on six counts charging violations of certain provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 1 and on one count charging that he conspired to violate the provisions of that law. The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment on each substantive count, but suspended all of these sentences and placed the defendant on probation for five years for each count with the probation periods to run concurrently. The court also imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment and a 10,000 dollar fine on the conspiracy count. The imprisonment on this count was likewise suspended and Beekelhy-mer was placed on probation conditioned on the payment of the fine in monthly installments. On this appeal the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support any of the jury verdicts.
The record contains ample evidence from which the jury could properly have found that Beckelhymer conspired to violate the provisions of this Act. The concurrent sentence doctrine makes it unnecessary to examine the defendant’s claims that the jury verdicts on the substantive counts were unsupported by evidence. E. g., United States v. Stone, 472 F. 2d 909 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Payne, 467 F. 2d 828 (5th Cir. 1972). The judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
. Specifically, three violations of 18 U.S.O. § 922(b)(3) and three violations of 18 U.S.O. § 922 (m).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Stone, 472 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Payne, 467 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1972)