18 U.S.C. § 659

100 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Forrest
  620 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Maxine Forrest's convictions, but William Henry Forrest's challenges regarding searches, seizures, and prosecutorial comments were rejected. The court remanded for a limited purpose related to jury tampering.
• United States v. Lefkowitz
  284 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-10 ·cited 90×
  The court held that prejudicial errors in jury instructions regarding the burden of proof for possession of recently stolen goods required reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. Crutcher
  405 F.2d 239· 2d Cir.· 1968-09-12 ·cited 84×
  The court held that a defendant's absence during jury impaneling requires a remand to determine if a knowing waiver occurred, as the right to be present is fundamental and its violation is not automatically harmless error. Other claims were found to be without merit.
• United States v. Eley
  723 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 75×
  The court held that cumulative punishments for theft and interstate transportation of stolen goods do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when Congress intended them as separate offenses, and that a defendant's incredible explanation for possession of stolen goods, combined wi
• Torres v. United States
  270 F.2d 252· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-03 ·cited 74×
  The appellate court held that the jury's acquittal on the theft charge did not legally require acquittal on the possession charge, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for knowing possession of stolen property.
• United States v. Green
  523 F.2d 229· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-29 ·cited 72×
  The court held that while the trial judge improperly pressured the jury by setting a deadline for deliberations, the issue was waived due to the defendants' acquiescence.
• United States v. Singer
  660 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that while the admission of a ten-year-old prior conviction was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless error, and that the denial of motions for acquittal and severance was proper.
• United States v. Greer
  467 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-18 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks were invited by the defense counsel's statements and did not exceed the bounds of that invitation.
• United States v. DeFILLIPO
  590 F.2d 1228· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 60×
  Defendants cannot complain about joint representation after being warned and electing to proceed.
• Pekar v. United States
  315 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 60×
  A prosecutor's conversation with a juror, even if not about the case, is grounds for reversal. Additionally, evidence obtained from a hotel room search without a warrant or valid consent must be suppressed.
• United States v. Dzialak
  441 F.2d 212· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-17 ·cited 58×
  The dissenting judge holds that evidence found during a lawful search, which is obviously the fruit of the crime for which the warrant was issued, can be seized without a new warrant.
• United States v. Domenick Casalinuovo
  350 F.2d 207· 2d Cir.· 1965-08-02 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish unlawful possession and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a co-defendant's confession with limiting instructions.
• Voytik v. United States
  778 F.2d 1306· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendant's allegations were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate his sentence, and that challenges to the execution of a sentence are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• United States v. Astolas
  487 F.2d 275· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 46×
  The court held that goods loaded, sealed, and prepared for interstate transit, even if not yet physically moved by a carrier or driver, constitute an interstate shipment under 18 U.S.C. § 659.
• United States v. Knight
  451 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was not the fruit of an illegal search and seizure, the indictment was sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted documents and gave jury instructions.
• United States v. Francisco
  410 F.2d 1283· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession of stolen goods and conspiracy, and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or in refusing a mistrial.
• United States v. Kearse
  444 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-10 ·cited 40×
  The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed stolen goods.
• United States v. Maxie Thomas and Wilbur Wiggins
  396 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for unlawful possession of stolen chinaware were valid because the cartons were in interstate or foreign commerce, and their statements to railroad police were admissible as they were not the product of an illegal arrest or custodia
• United States v. Williams
  445 F.2d 421· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of prior convictions for impeachment, even without a limiting instruction, was not reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Allegrucci
  258 F.2d 70· 3d Cir.· 1958-07-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that jury instructions stating possession of recently stolen goods casts a burden of explanation on the defendant, and that the indictment's description of the theft location was sufficiently specific, constituted prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Henneberry
  719 F.2d 941· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and possession of stolen goods, and that various trial errors claimed by the defendants were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Marrale
  695 F.2d 658· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that cumulative punishments may be imposed for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 659 (theft from foreign shipment) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) (bank larceny) when they arise from a single transaction, as Congress intended to address different evils.
• United States v. Gimelstob
  475 F.2d 157· 3d Cir.· 1973-02-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants' numerous claims of error, including challenges to the search warrant, joinder of offenses, admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence, were without merit.
• United States v. Carneglia
  468 F.2d 1084· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-30 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for possession and guilty knowledge, and upholding the warrantless search and admission of statements.
• Robinson v. United States
  333 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the value of the stolen dresses in the appellants' possession exceeded $100.00, thus the sentences imposed were excessive.
• United States v. Allegrucci
  299 F.2d 811· 3d Cir.· 1962-02-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to allow the defendant to make a statement before sentencing was an error requiring remand, but other alleged errors were either harmless or without merit.
• United States v. Mavrick
  601 F.2d 921· 7th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possessing stolen goods was valid because the statute does not require proof of intent to convert, and the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to joint representation failed as no actual conflict of interes
• Fields v. United States
  408 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to order a severance, nor was the indictment duplicitous, and the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Stroble
  431 F.2d 1273· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of Robert Stroble, and that a new trial was required for both appellants due to errors in jury instructions and potential insufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Airdo
  380 F.2d 103· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged knowledge and that the search and seizure were lawful based on voluntary consent.
• United States v. Russell
  913 F.2d 1288· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Sentencing Commission's clarifying amendment limited 'organized criminal activity' to schemes involving stolen vehicles or parts, and that loss valuation should consider the victim's market.
• United States v. Tursi
  576 F.2d 396· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, despite his belief that his son would receive probation, because the court clearly stated that any recommendations were not binding.
• Dunson v. United States
  404 F.2d 447· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an indictment alleging possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment of freight sufficiently states an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 659, even without specifying the exact facility from which the goods were stolen.
• United States v. Padilla
  374 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the theft from a motor truck under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is complete when the goods are taken into possession and control with intent to convert, not requiring physical removal from the vehicle.
• United States v. Sclamo
  578 F.2d 888· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose witness lists, denying a motion to suppress, denying a mistrial, refusing a specific jury instruction on mens rea for conspiracy, or denying a new trial.
• United States v. Hart
  407 F.2d 1087· 2d Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing an anticipatory ruling on the admissibility of statements for impeachment, and that the principle announced in Simmons v. United States should not be given retroactive application.
• United States v. Scarlata
  214 F.2d 807· 3d Cir.· 1954-07-19 ·cited 26×
  A plea of guilty in state court, without a subsequent judgment of conviction, does not bar a federal prosecution for the same acts. However, a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for the offense charged is subject to correction.
• United States v. Solimine
  536 F.2d 703· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 25×
  A defendant cannot be convicted of both theft and possession of the same stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. § 659, as the possession offense is intended for receivers, not the original thieves.
• United States v. Garber
  626 F.2d 1144· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the copper cathodes remained part of a foreign shipment when stolen, affirming the theft conviction, but reversed the possession conviction due to multiplicity. The court also reversed the conviction for removal from customs custody, finding the goods were not
• United States v. Garnette Wasson and George Lee Littrell
  568 F.2d 1214· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance motions, as the joinder of defendants and the evidence presented created prejudicial confusion for the jury regarding the conspiracy charge, which spilled over into the substantive counts.
• United States v. Marpes (two cases)
  198 F.2d 186· 3d Cir.· 1952-07-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and sentences for receiving stolen goods and for stealing from an interstate shipment, and that the jury's credibility determinations were binding.
• United States v. James Marshall Shackleford (84-5995)
  777 F.2d 1141· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions on intent for embezzlement were proper, the denial of an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct was not an abuse of discretion, and restitution was lawfully imposed under the Federal Probation Act.
• United States v. Waronek
  582 F.2d 1158· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 22×
  The district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that an essential element of theft from an interstate shipment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.
• United States v. Monasterski
  567 F.2d 677· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 22×
  A conviction for possession of stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is barred if the goods were recovered by their owner or agent before delivery to the defendant, as they lose their 'stolen' character.
• United States v. Bruno Anthony Piet and Delmar L. Markham
  498 F.2d 178· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-20 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the indictment was sufficient, evidence supported possession, the motion to suppress was properly denied, and there was no evidence of a perjured witness due to an undisclosed plea bargain.
• United States v. Sharpe
  452 F.2d 1117· 1st Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of knowing possession of stolen goods and that the warrantless search of the U-Haul truck was permissible under the Fourth Amendment due to probable cause.
• United States v. Cimini
  427 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that publicity during the trial did not prejudice the defendants and that O'Malley could be held responsible for conspiracy acts committed before he joined.
• United States v. Scanzello
  832 F.2d 18· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the value of stolen goods is a necessary element for a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 when the object of the conspiracy is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, and this element must be alleged in the indictment.
• United States v. Williams
  559 F.2d 1243· 4th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge believes the evidence was insufficient to support federal jurisdiction, arguing the gasoline was no longer part of an interstate shipment when stolen from a storage tank.
• United States v. Kaylor
  491 F.2d 1127· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its conduct, evidentiary rulings, or identification procedures, and affirmed the convictions. However, a dissenting opinion argued for remand for resentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.