CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RY. CO.

v.

HENRY, ADMINISTRATRIX

Citator

Cited By

• Monroe v. United States, 234 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
• United States v. DE Normand, 149 F.2d 622 (2d Cir. 1945)
  …ury and mutilation.” Similarly, in section 409, the prohibition is against taking “from any * * * truck”. See also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306; United States v. Busch, 2 Cir., 64 F. 2d 27, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 627, 54 S.Ct. 65, 78 L.Ed. 546. Hence there was no error in cumulating the sentences imposed under the two groups of substantive counts. Nor can it be doubted that the district judge had power to impose an additional punishment for the crime of conspira…
• United States v. Kinsley, 518 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1975)
  …* * any mail bag * * held, tearing of each mail bag a separate offense). On the present authoritativeness of Parmagini v. United States, supra, and Braden v. United States, supra, compare United States v. Busch, 64 F. 2d 27 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 627, 54 S.Ct. 65, 78 L.Ed. 546 (1933), with United States v. Martin, supra. B. THE ALLOWABLE UNIT OF PROSECUTION: 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). The question in the instant case thus narrows to whether the allowable unit of prosecution under § 1202(a) shou…