18 U.S.C. § 659

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

• United States v. Langley
  466 F.2d 27· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence seized from the defendant's dwelling was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for possessing stolen goods from an interstate shipment.
• United States v. Viruet
  539 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that knowledge of interstate commerce status of goods is not required for conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659.
• Killilea v. United States
  287 F.2d 212· 1st Cir.· 1961-02-23 ·cited 14×
  A mistrial declared over a defendant's objection, due to a juror's wife communicating with him about trial matters, does not bar a subsequent retrial on double jeopardy grounds if the mistrial was necessary for public justice. However, the defendants are entitled to a new trial d
• United States v. Houle
  490 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that knowledge of the interstate nature of goods is an element of conspiracy, and its omission from jury instructions constituted plain error requiring reversal of the conspiracy conviction, but not the substantive conviction.
• United States v. Castell
  584 F.2d 87· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the witness's prior conduct and in giving a jury instruction regarding possession of recently stolen property.
• United States v. Franklin
  568 F.2d 1156· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the presumption of interstate commerce did not constitute plain error, and the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, while potentially vehement, did not deny the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Gates
  528 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the goods retained their interstate character at the time of the theft.
• Packnett v. United States Gov't
  503 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the failure to allege or prove the value of stolen articles is immaterial for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 when the sentence is imposed under the Youth Corrections Act. The court also held that the appellant received effective assistance of counsel and t
• United States v. Waldman
  240 F.2d 449· 2d Cir.· 1957-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was amply justified and that the alleged errors during the trial were trivial or nonexistent.
• United States v. Green
  446 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on jury instructions, venue, or photographic identification.
• United States v. Wills
  593 F.2d 285· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that goods stolen from a shipper's loading platform, destined for out-of-state delivery and irrevocably committed to interstate commerce, fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 659.
• United States v. Ditata
  469 F.2d 1270· 7th Cir.· 1972-11-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the value of stolen property for the purpose of determining the felony penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 659 should be assessed at the time of the defendant's unlawful possession, not at the time of the theft.
• United States v. Rutilio Lorenzo Petti
  459 F.2d 294· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is permissible even if the evidence shows larceny rather than embezzlement, as charged, because the statute consolidates these offenses and any variance was harmless.
• United States v. Meduri
  457 F.2d 330· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 10×
  A defendant can be convicted of both stealing and possessing stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. § 659, even if the acts are separated in time and space.
• United States v. Belcher
  448 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1971-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's truck was permissible due to probable cause and that the jury instructions regarding causing acts to be done and scrutinizing accomplice testimony were adequate.
• United States v. Malfetti
  213 F.2d 728· 3d Cir.· 1954-06-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the dismissal of state charges did not constitute double jeopardy for a federal trial.
• Melson v. United States
  207 F.2d 558· 4th Cir.· 1953-10-08 ·cited 10×
  The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict that the defendant possessed stolen goods knowing they were stolen.
• United States v. Esquivel
  919 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 8×
  A prior course of conduct in fencing stolen property is not required for the offense level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.2(b)(3)(A).
• United States v. Faulkner
  638 F.2d 129· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for theft from an interstate shipment, as the defendant exercised dominion and control with intent to convert the goods.
• United States v. Truman Williams
  545 F.2d 1036· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 8×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is not fatally defective for failing to specify the exact place or facility from which goods were stolen, provided it informs the defendant of the offense charged. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of unlawful possessio
• United States v. Jewel Dandridge and Charles Matthews
  437 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the trial court did not err in admitting shipping documents or in allowing impeachment by prior convictions. However, a clerical error in the judgment required remand.
• United States v. Taylor
  428 F.2d 515· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the dump truck was lawful because it was based on probable cause and the exigencies of the situation, and the search was substantially contemporaneous with a lawful arrest.
• Jack v. United States
  341 F.2d 273· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court acted within a reasonable time in resentencing the appellant, and therefore the sentence was not invalid due to delay.
• United States v. de Fina
  315 F.2d 362· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the theft of goods from a pier, even from a designated 'farm area' used for loading, constitutes theft from a 'wharf' under the statute.
• United States v. Barrett
  280 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1960-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning kidnapping was relevant to the federal charges and not unduly prejudicial, and that other contentions lacked merit.
• United States v. Massarotti
  462 F.2d 1328· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find knowing possession of stolen merchandise, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Huey P. Fulmer
  722 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a dismissal of the indictment was warranted due to governmental error, it should be without prejudice because the errors did not rise to the level of gross negligence or misconduct that actually prejudiced the defendant.
• United States v. Flick
  719 F.2d 246· 7th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying continuances, refusing severance, admitting identification testimony, or finding sufficient evidence for conviction, and that the mailings were sufficient to establish mail fraud.
• United States v. Johnson
  612 F.2d 843· 4th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that each distinct act of stealing gasoline constituted a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 659, and that joint representation of co-defendants did not prejudice the appellant.
• United States v. Young
  527 F.2d 1334· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for theft was valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding suppression, confessions, entrapment, indictment, evidence, and jury instructions.
• United States v. Willis
  525 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made and admissible, and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony despite a potential witness sequestration violation or in admitting impeachment evidence.
• Rice v. United States
  411 F.2d 485· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that sufficient competent evidence supported the conviction for stealing a suitcase moving in interstate commerce, and a hearsay error was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Burton A. Grossman and Barry S. Badolato
  614 F.2d 295· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a catalog was admissible as a business record or commercial publication and that a jury instruction regarding possession of recently stolen property was proper.
• United States v. Tanda
  568 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of the suitcase into evidence and the prosecutor's comments during closing argument did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Douver
  472 F.2d 472· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' act of attaching a tractor to a trailer and transporting it, despite FBI surveillance, constituted sufficient dominion and control to support convictions for theft and possession of stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. § 659.
• Grover Melvin Mungo v. United States
  423 F.2d 1351· 4th Cir.· 1970-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that imported merchandise is in constructive customs custody upon arrival and remains so until inspection and release, even after estimated duties are paid. The court also found sufficient evidence for the theft charge.
• United States v. Grillo
  527 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 3×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement against the declarant, even if indirectly implicating others, does not violate Bruton if it is not directly inculpatory of the non-declarant appellants.
• United States v. Richardson
  694 F.2d 251· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 2×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is not insufficient for failing to specify the instrumentality of interstate commerce from which goods were stolen, and a defendant charged solely with possession of stolen goods cannot claim a variance if evidence suggests he also stole them.
• United States v. Luman
  622 F.2d 490· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the theft of tires from a consignee's warehouse did not occur from an interstate shipment within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 659 because the interstate journey had terminated upon delivery to the consignee.
• United States v. Montelbano
  605 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-09 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Watson
  570 F.2d 282· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the definition of 'value' from 18 U.S.C. § 641 is applicable to 18 U.S.C. § 659, and the trial court correctly applied it.
• United States v. Stanley
  455 F.2d 644· 4th Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prosecutor's misstatement to the jury, implying a defense witness's story was recently fabricated, was not harmless error and warranted a new trial.
• United States v. Brown
  996 F.2d 1049· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-22
  A defendant cannot be convicted of both theft and possession of the same property under 18 U.S.C. § 659, and the proper remedy for such a multiplicitous conviction, when evidence supports both, is to vacate the possession conviction.
• United States v. Goodwin
  963 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-30
  The dissent argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the aluminum was 'moving' in interstate commerce at the time of the theft.
• United States v. Murray
  946 F.2d 154· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-08
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to find that the stolen computer parts constituted an interstate shipment for purposes of the statute, as Computervision had taken all necessary steps for the goods to begin interstate travel.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  707 F.2d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23
  The court held that the admission of the .38 caliber weapon was not unfairly prejudicial and that the two counts (theft from interstate shipment and obstruction of commerce by robbery) did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause as they required proof of different facts.
• United States v. Sinacola
  476 F.2d 307· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-03
  The court held that a conviction for theft under 18 U.S.C. § 659 requires proof of an overt act inconsistent with lawful possession, not merely unauthorized intent.
• United States v. Littlepage
  435 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1970-12-22
  The court held that the defendant's oral statement was voluntary and admissible, and that the impeachment of a defense witness was proper.
• Evans v. United States
  382 F.2d 739· 9th Cir.· 1967-09-05
  The court held that the appellant's consent to search was valid and that the statute applied to baggage as well as freight or express.