-
370 F.2d 147·
8th Cir.·
1966-12-06
·cited 94×
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to implicate Nassif in the conspiracy to steal from interstate commerce and affirmed the convictions of both Nassif and Schmadebeck.
-
176 F.2d 217·
7th Cir.·
1949-06-28
·cited 70×
The court held that the jury was warranted in finding the defendant willfully attempted to evade taxes, and that any errors concerning one count were not prejudicial due to the sentence imposed.
-
344 F.2d 97·
8th Cir.·
1965-04-14
·cited 66×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the references to a defendant's prior conviction did not constitute prejudicial error.
-
170 F.2d 968·
7th Cir.·
1948-11-30
·cited 56×
A general sentence imposed on multiple counts is valid if the punishment does not exceed the maximum for any single count and the evidence supports conviction on at least one count. A trial court may direct the probation service not to conduct a presentence investigation.
-
386 F.2d 760·
8th Cir.·
1967-12-19
·cited 46×
The court held that the admission of salesmen's statements was proper under the circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for mail fraud.
-
401 F.2d 756·
8th Cir.·
1968-09-26
·cited 42×
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, and that the Haynes v. United States self-incrimination defense did not apply to a charge of possessing a firearm illegally made by another.
-
338 So. 2d 556·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1976-10-19
·cited 32×
John Murry Johnson was convicted of robbery and display of a firearm during commission of a felony. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court's sentencing documents were inconsistent with
-
173 F.2d 46·
5th Cir.·
1949-03-08
·cited 32×
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions of Mildred Yielding and Truman Gaddis for receiving and transporting stolen automobiles in interstate commerce.
-
323 F.2d 51·
5th Cir.·
1963-09-10
·cited 28×
A general sentence under multiple counts of wire fraud is sustainable if the sentence does not exceed the maximum for the proven counts, even if one count lacks sufficient evidence.
-
396 F.2d 822·
5th Cir.·
1968-06-24
·cited 18×
The court held that a conflict of interest arising from joint representation of codefendants, where one codefendant's testimony implicated the other, violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The court also held that the term 'mash' in the relevant st
-
481 F.2d 976·
3d Cir.·
1973-06-22
·cited 16×
The court held that a prior sentence, even if containing language that could be construed as illegal, does not necessarily require resentencing if it does not exceed the maximum permissible sentence on any one valid count.
-
367 F.2d 378·
5th Cir.·
1966-10-13
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to impose the sentence under Rule 20, and that the defendant's other claims were either waived, unsupported by the record, or frivolous.
-
161 F.2d 723·
10th Cir.·
1947-05-02
·cited 12×
A general sentence on multiple counts is not void if the aggregate sentence does not exceed the maximum allowed for all offenses.
-
297 F.2d 179·
7th Cir.·
1961-12-12
·cited 6×
The court held that a general sentence on multiple counts is permissible if within the aggregate maximum, and that a sentence reduction under Rule 35 can involve changing concurrent to consecutive terms, without requiring the defendant's presence.
-
145 F.2d 111·
6th Cir.·
1944-10-09
·cited 6×
The court held that the two offenses charged were separate and distinct, and that the general sentence imposed was authorized by the larceny count.
-
232 F.2d 357·
D.C. Cir.·
1956-03-08
·cited 2×